Thanks for this.

by Nate on Oct 21, 2010 1:52 pm • link • report

...one person alone can't enact a city-wide inclusionary zoning policy or demand that a developer include a substantial amount of mixed-income units in their next project...

What's the purpose of this in the context of gentrification / displacement? Aren't renters primarily impacted by displacement? Is the assumption that they're going to be buying these units? Seems likely that "displacement" will continue apace with these measures, just that the renters will be displaced with middle-class newcomers who meet the "affordable housing" income criteria.

IZ / "affordable housing" seems to be a sort of "magic-wand phrase" that gets waved around whenever we talk about a whole clutch of related housing issues, but it's not clear exactly how some substantial number of existing long-term DC residents who are being displaced because of financial reasons will be helped.

by oboe on Oct 21, 2010 2:19 pm • link • report

A libertarian such as McArdle probably wouldn't buy what you're selling here.

As a fellow Eckingtonian, my comment on McArdle's posts on her home search and purchase is that, for whatever reason, she paints a far bleaker picture of our neighborhood (no services, no eateries, no bars, she wrote yesterday) than is actually the case. But maybe that's the difference between a newcomer and a 7 year resident (though I have always hated when folks hold out neighborhood tenure as a way to legitimize his/her point). It seems appropriate here though.

by JTE on Oct 21, 2010 2:26 pm • link • report

@ oboe Mixed income housing can be (and frequently is) for renters. The difficulty is, gentrifiers generally don't want it in their new neighborhood, so they call it a housing project and protest it. See the comments section of any Prince of Petworth post about a mixed income apartment building for proof.

by jcm on Oct 21, 2010 2:34 pm • link • report

I want the services, but I don't want this to price out all the people who already live there.

That's where McArdle's fatalism becomes self-serving. If gentrifiers had sustainable lifestyles, their neighborhoods would be sustained as well.

What gentrifiers and the suburbanites they contrast themselves with have in common is that their primary mode of expression is through consumption. The issue is class, not race.

Newcomers to inner city neighborhoods would be perhaps more welcome if they would (a) not demand excessive luxuries like tween boutiques, (b) cook their food instead of demanding chic dining options for multiple meals out per week, (c) support and participate in public venues like rec centers and schools instead of demanding private gyms and private schools, and so on.

by Ken Archer on Oct 21, 2010 2:41 pm • link • report

Thanks for an excellent post.

A conversation well worth having.

by Mike S. on Oct 21, 2010 2:42 pm • link • report

@jcm:

. The difficulty is, gentrifiers generally don't want it in their new neighborhood, so they call it a housing project and protest it.

Obviously there's a lot of knee-jerk NIMBYism that revolves around these issues, but some of the nomenclature *is* confusing. (A cynic would say some of it is intentional).

I think if the project is *truly* mixed-income, meaning affordable to working-class folks with household incomes of, say, $35-60k, there's very little resistance. (This is the much touted "teachers, police, firemen", etc...)

It's when folks in the community sense that "affordable housing" is a euphemism for "the projects" that opposition mounts. And I don't think it's fair to say the opposition comes solely from "gentrifiers" either.

by oboe on Oct 21, 2010 2:43 pm • link • report

@jcm,

Just one further point: I briefly scanned the comments on those three links, and it looks like most of the community beef comes against concentrated Section 8 housing, of which there is a disproportionate amount in Petworth/Columbia Heights. It seems the confusion between "mixed-income", "workforce housing", IZ, or whatever and traditional massed poverty housing projects is a major issue.

by oboe on Oct 21, 2010 2:49 pm • link • report

I think who moves into "affordable housing" depends on how "affordable" it is. Depending on the program / funding, etc. developers have to offer units to people making 80% of AMI, 50%, even 20%. So you have folks paying $65,000 for a two bedroom condo in Columbia Heights, for example. Since sales prices (or rental rates) are set at no more than 30% of gross monthly income (including utilities, taxes, etc!), you can pretty quickly do the math that these are NOT middle class folks. Which is great. There is far too little of it, but it's a start.

But what really raises your eyebrows is when you compare the sales prices for the affordable units to what market rate is. That same two bedroom condo in Columbia Heights may have sold for close to $600,000 on the open market. It's insane. The affordable housing guidelines keep a household's housing expenses at a reasonable rate - that 30% - but as soon as you're $1 over, you're either A) paying WAAAAY over 30% (not prudent), B) using two incomes to buy it, or C) are in the upper 1% income bracket. Which leaves out a LOT of middle class folks.

The city needs 80% (and less) of AMI housing, but it also really needs "workforce housing" - available to people making up to 120% of AMI, with the same 30% of gross income restrictions for rent or purchase.

by Josh S on Oct 21, 2010 2:52 pm • link • report

The essay-within-the-article says "...neither writer comprehends large-scale economic processes." - That may be, but the point is not what those economic processes are but the scale. They are large. And large-scale economic processes are the sort that Jacobs saw as dangerous to a good neighborhood's steady state.

So many people read Death and Life and completely miss that she wrote several other books, some specifically on the fallacies of these large-scale economic processes, practically begging and pleading for localism. Small-scale economics, like micro-lending, would ensure a place maintains a good character.

Starbucks is antithetical to Jacobean neighborhoods. The investment banker buying the goods in the local store isn't the one she would have worried about, it's the one who authorized the loan for the multi-national conglomerate to purchase the old factory and refurbish it as luxury condos.

For the $3 million dollar grant to be successful in Jacobean terms, the "Expanding job opportunities" must be the creation of jobs in small, local firms. If the only expanded job opportunities are at a Starbucks, then, yes, we are just shrugging our shoulders, and Jacobs is hopefully much happier in the great city in the sky.

by Dave M on Oct 21, 2010 2:56 pm • link • report

If gentrifiers had sustainable lifestyles, their neighborhoods would be sustained as well.

Could you elaborate on this? In what sense is the lifestyle of "the gentrifiers" not sustainable?

What gentrifiers and the suburbanites they contrast themselves with have in common is that their primary mode of expression is through consumption. The issue is class, not race.

One could argue that everyone has in common "that their primary mode of expression is consumption." Heck, if we look at consumption as a percentage of income, poor people indulge in more consumption than the middle- and upper-middle class, right?

Or perhaps we should put together a list: Quarter Pounders? OK! Arugala? No way!

by oboe on Oct 21, 2010 2:59 pm • link • report

@oboe Take this project as an example. It's 50% market rate, 50% 60-80% AMI (aka Workforce Housing). The very first comment is "ya more public housing in columbia heights". The community beef, as far as I can see, generally comes from people who don't want any subsidized housing in their neighborhood.

I don't know of any new projects being built as 100% subsidized in DC, though there may be some I'm unaware of. DC doesn't encourage it, because they know it doesn't work.

by jcm on Oct 21, 2010 3:01 pm • link • report

On the flip side, can we talk about 'long standing residents' being hostile to newcomers? I've lived in Eckington for a year now and still have a hard time with neighbors (shooting fireworks at our house, harassing us, etc.) when all we've done is try to be good neighbors and renovate our home. Yes, I understand that I may represent gentrification for them, but I bought my house from a foreclosure that had been vacant for a year, so I 1) didn't displace anyone and 2) probably improved my neighbors' houses by rescuing a vacant property from disrepair.

I think the 'how to prevent gentrification' debat is a good and worthy one (especially as cities become more popular with young families, increasing demand), but I also wonder why it's acceptable for 'long standing residents' which in many cases is itself a euphemism for 'black residents' to be hostile, unhelpful and rude to new residents.

by Allison on Oct 21, 2010 3:02 pm • link • report

@Josh S:

There is far too little of it, but it's a start.

One question that comes to mind: with the mechanisms that exist (e.g. IZ, etc...) is it even possible to "set-aside" enough units to make a difference? It seems almost as though the number of units will be tiny, and assigned to folks who essentially win the lottery.

Good for those individuals, but not enough impact to promote the desired policy.

by oboe on Oct 21, 2010 3:04 pm • link • report

@jcm:

The community beef, as far as I can see, generally comes from people who don't want any subsidized housing in their neighborhood.

Thanks for the link. There's a lot of ignorance out there on the "anti-" side. I think much of that is driven by cynicism fueled by day-to-day exposure to the failed 100% projects that dominate that area.

From your description, it sounds like the Georgia/Lamont project is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing.

by oboe on Oct 21, 2010 3:09 pm • link • report

@jcm:

One last question, then I'll shut up: What about the question of Section 8 housing vouchers? When computing "50% 60-80% AMI (aka Workforce Housing)" is qualification based solely on income? Or can folks with little or no income qualify to rent based on Section 8 subsidies?

Just to get at the confusion most semi-informed people feel when confronting this issue:

In this report, affordable housing refers to mixed income housing development that includes all income categories: very low, low, moderate, above moderate and market rate housing. Workforce housing refers to mixed income housing that excludes very low income households.

I think support for "workforce housing" is nearly universal in DC. Opposition to "low-income housing" stems mostly from the belief that there's already a disproportionate amount of low-income housing in the District as compared to the surrounding jurisdictions.

If housing advocates can show that units of "low-income / affordable" housing are *replacing* units in "the projects" I think a great deal of the opposition goes away.

by oboe on Oct 21, 2010 3:26 pm • link • report

Are most parties agreed on the baseline assumption? That is, left unfettered, capitalism would almost always drive gentrification / displacement to its logical conclusion? If so, you can understand the libertarian's "lament." If you believe in some restraint on market-forces to preserve some other outcome, the question would seem to be an empirical one of what works, measured against society's tolerance for using government powers (taxes, zoning, grant making) to skew the market result. I would consider myself one of those moderates, but I am really left clueless when I ponder what tools are actually effective at the right level.

I looked at the cited grant to Historic Anacostia, and I didn't really see anything that could stop the awesome power of the marketplace. E.g., how does promoting home ownership stop people from selling out to developers or newcomers? Seems like all you can do is slow the processes -- some maybe current residents will stay but what's to keep the next generation when residents pass away? For that reason, I count myself among the skeptics of the many "solutions" being debated here. I'm not shrugging my shoulders, but I also don't think there are any panaceas.

by John on Oct 21, 2010 3:30 pm • link • report

I believe you can qualify for Section 8 housing with little to no income. They consider it based on need.

As someone who has seen the system abused in a really disgusting way, something needs to be done. From my experiences, any mention of subsidized housing options is always met with resistance. Of course, it depends on where you live.

by HogWash on Oct 21, 2010 3:35 pm • link • report

Sweet fanciful Moses! I'm agreeing with just about every comment from oboe!

I need to go lay down for a while to recover.

by Fritz on Oct 21, 2010 3:42 pm • link • report

@oboe,

Displacement happens when inexpensive (however cheap) retailers can't pay new commercial rents, land speculation increases residential property taxes and residents oppose new small-scale or affordable housing. So,

(1) Don't rely on your house for your retirement: When gentrifiers count on home value increases for their retirement, they are much more likely to oppose affordable and small-scale housing construction. Invest in the market through tax-deferred vehicles for your retirement and then demand more affordable housing in your community. This will in turn deter speculators looking for the new Columbia Heights.

(2) Cook at home for nearly every meal: Eating out multiple times per week increases rents for existing, less expensive food options. Cooking at home doesn't.

Speculators don't start bidding up a neighborhood when white people move in, they do so when market data indicates that conspicuous consumers move in. Consequently, lifestyles with a small carbon footprint also have a small gentrification footprint.

While this may sound like an unreasonable demand to make, it's actually asking of upper class newcomers to conduct themselves like the previous upper class of these neighborhoods did when they were in their heighday before the 60s.

by Ken Archer on Oct 21, 2010 3:47 pm • link • report

Unfortunately, there is no hard and fast definition of "workforce" housing in terms of percentage of AMI. So different projects will use it differently. Around here, I think 50% clearly fits, since the AMI used by DHCD is $103,000.

Section 8 housing vouchers are completely different from projects that say they will offer units to folks at a certain percentage of AMI. So, no, a person in possession of those vouchers could not use them as part of their income. But more to the point - why would they? The point with affordable housing units is to earn LESS, so as to qualify for the various categories. But nor would the developer count them. The vouchers are just that - a promise from the local jurisdiction to make payments directly to the property owner. They aren't "income" in any sense of that word. And not all property owners accept them. I used to be a real estate agent in Arlington and tried to help out a couple of different people who had the vouchers from the county. It was not a pretty picture as the vouchers still are not enough to typically get a person into a market rate unit. So you're left with a few properties that take them, most of which had serious quality of life issues, in my opinion.

It's too bad if people think that a project that includes affordable housing (even if it's 100%) automatically assume that means public housing. Definitely not. Public housing is owned and operated by DCHA. The vast majority of projects you hear about in the news will be owned by either a private sector company or a non-profit. The city often subsidizes the construction of the ADUs, but that's it. No ownership. There is supposed to be ongoing monitoring to make sure the units continue to be occupied by folks within the appropriate income categories. But many of these projects only need to be affordable for a certain period of time. So twenty or thirty years after opening, they can revert to market rate.

So yes, a long term solution is very difficult to find. I hesitate to get involved in the height restriction discussion, but relieving it may be one part of the solution. Especially when we think long-term to a time when places like Woodbridge REALLY become untenable.

by Josh S on Oct 21, 2010 3:57 pm • link • report

@ oboe I don't believe that vouchers have any sort of cash value that can be used to meet minimum income requirements for developments like the one on Georgia Ave. You have to fall within the income requirements band with normal, taxable income.

Housing Choice vouchers (aka section 8 vouchers) can generally be used in any rentable property. In DC it is illegal to refuse to rent to someone based on source of payment, so you can't decline someone just because they have vouchers. When someone has a voucher, they pay 30% of their income towards rent and utilities, and HUD pays the rest directly to the landlord.

I agree that there's lots of confusion on the issue, and I'm no expert, so maybe a real expert will come along and correct me if I'm wrong.

My personal opinion is that the city needs affordable housing, and that warehousing poor people is a really bad idea. We don't need any more Sursum Cordas. Beyond those fairly non-controversial points, it's a complicated problem with no easy solutions.

by jcm on Oct 21, 2010 4:16 pm • link • report

@Ken: Asking upper-class residents not to patronize local businesses will prevent gentrification?

That's one of the more outlandish claims I've heard in a while, and isn't healthy or sustainable for the economy as a whole. If we're going to have a distinct upper-class, they need to be spending their money.

by andrew on Oct 21, 2010 4:22 pm • link • report

The whole "cook at home all the time" post is the craziest thing I've read in ages. Totally misses the nature of the economy and how people work today.

Sure, I'm gonna clock out of my union job exactly at 5, and go home and eat pot roast that my stay at home spouse has been cooking all afternoon, or perhaps some low-cost neighborhood "help" has done it instead. Then after the 2.2 kids have cleaned up the dishes, we'll all sit around and watch I Love Lucy on the TV with 2 channels on it.

Sheesh.

by spookiness on Oct 21, 2010 4:31 pm • link • report

If we're going to have a distinct upper-class, they need to be spending their money.

The upper class managed their money very differently before the 2nd half of the 20th century, with very different land use consequences.

Gentrification has the same cause as the conflict between parents who have returned to the city and childless citydwellers - the newcomers expect to lead a suburban lifestyle, which only became possible in the last half-century, in the city where it doesn't work without conflict.

The whole "cook at home all the time" post is the craziest thing I've read in ages. Totally misses the nature of the economy and how people work today.

Does the idea that people drive way too much totally miss the nature of the economy and how people get around today as well? The idea that conspicuous consumption is creating a waste-driven economy that uproots entire communities is not my idea, and deserves consideration and critique, not mocking.

by Ken Archer on Oct 21, 2010 4:42 pm • link • report

I agree with spookiness that the cook at home reasoning is bizarre.

I don't see how inclusionary zoning of 20 or 30% will do anything but change the calculus of new construction financing and slow down development. If development then doesn't keep pace with growth because of artificial factors then market rate buyers will pay even more and pay that higher cost for the privilege of living with people who will default on their condos fees at a greater rate. I feel inclusionary zoning shouldn't be more than 10% of units.

I used to lean very liberal. I defended the safety net to my republican friends. But moving into downtown DC and seeing my ANC commissioners as men who've been primarily unemployed for 20 years I've become less sympathetic. If you can hold an ANC position you can hold a job. They are choosing not to better their job skills or get a low paying job because they prefer to live off the government (and also complain that the government doesn't do enough for them). This is not sustainable. People have responsibility to society not just trying to extract what they can get out of it...

by Jason on Oct 21, 2010 4:45 pm • link • report

@Ken Archer:
What I suspect people are reacting to, and certainly something I reacted to, is that you missed spelling out the step where the new, wealthier people aren't going to patronize the existing, established eateries that existed in the community pre-gentrification.

Unfortunately, that's probably a safe assumption. For every Horace & Dickies that flourishes in gentrification, there are a dozen other longstanding businesses that go under.

by Nate on Oct 21, 2010 5:02 pm • link • report

@ Jason There will always be people who game the system, no matter what that system may be. For every able bodied ANC who refuses to work and whines about the government screwing them, I can show you a fabulously rich banker who got bailed out three years ago and now whines about the government screwing them. More germane to this issue, I can show you people who fell on hard times, were saved by the safety net, and returned to the productive working/middle class.

We've all seen people who are clearly abusing social programs. That doesn't mean the programs aren't worthwhile.

by jcm on Oct 21, 2010 5:03 pm • link • report

Let me add that at City Vista I've seen people in affordable units that are recent grads of Duke University and Georgetown Law. These aren't teachers and fireman. There just Fed employees getting started in their careers. Having a low-income because your an entry level employee just means you should sacrifice and live in a group house to keep your rent down before you prove your worth in the workforce and secure a better income. Giving recent college grads subsidized housing at a place like City Vista is just using our tax dollars to give people an opportunity to take shortcuts in life.

by Jason on Oct 21, 2010 5:08 pm • link • report

@jcm - I disagree. It says alot about the current community that they consistently vote in able-bodied unemployed men who blame government for everything into the ANC positions. It shows the value set of the community.

Unless perhaps if you're handicapped living the majority of your life in the safety net is not acceptable.

by Jason on Oct 21, 2010 5:14 pm • link • report

@Jason:

Unfortunately, this is DC, and and it doesn't seem like very many people care about misuse or abuse of public programs.

by ChrisW on Oct 21, 2010 5:18 pm • link • report

Unfortunately, that's probably a safe assumption. For every Horace & Dickies that flourishes in gentrification, there are a dozen other longstanding businesses that go under.

I know this is going to be somewhat controversial, but I've found the places that *don't* go under are the ones that don't actively try to actively alienate the new clientele.

Horace & Dickey's, Ben's Chili Bowl, and countless liquor stores that took down the riot grating and started stocking Dale's Pale Ale have done incredibly well. The place on the corner that gives you the stink-eye every time you walk past, not so much.

by oboe on Oct 21, 2010 5:22 pm • link • report

@ Jason I think you're assuming a level of intent or complicity that frequently doesn't exist. My ANC is running unopposed. I don;t know the guy. I have no idea whether or not he has a job. When he "wins", does that mean that I and my neighbors are voting in an able-bodied unemployed man (if he is unemployed and able-bodied, of course). If I knew who he was, and knew he was able-bodied and unemployed, would it be my duty to try to run against him and put a stop to this?

I'm pretty politically involved, but I find it hard to get exercised one way or another about ANCs. That's probably a character flaw, but it doesn't mean I'm pro- or con- any particular ANC. I plead both ignorance and apathy regarding ANCs, and I suspect I'm not alone in that.

by jcm on Oct 21, 2010 5:57 pm • link • report

I couldn't agree with this more. The notion that the upper middle class and the lower middle class can't live amongst each other is how suburbanization institutionally segregated much of America for so many generations. McArdle's sentiment is assumptive and condescending.

by Dave Murphy on Oct 21, 2010 6:54 pm • link • report

the idea that McArdle and Jane Jacobs would have something in common is just one of the wacky assumptions she advances. Gentrification id not as inevitable. Just ask people who bought into U St and other spec neighborhoods 20-25 years ago and dodged bullets and other problems until comparatively recently. In terms of mixes of ethnicity and income co-existing, Mt Pleasant provides a useful, long-term example. In most cities, it's not hard to find places that have never really taken off or fully lived up to their promise--the tedium that is Southwest is a good example. There's no guarantee that Eckington will be the great investment McArdle thinks it might be.

As for making people welcome and having redevelopment, it depends on how you do it. It helps if the community finds things everyone wants--a clean, well-run Giant or Safeway is a more realistic vehicle for this than attracting a Whole Foods. One of the things that made me happy to leave my Atlanta neighborhood was the sentiment of so many people that we needed more restaurants (of the type that usually wind up being overpriced and mediocre) rather than a branch bank or a drug store. We were probably the only place with a business district that lacked a CVS. Even though DC is doing much better than most cities, the cost of housing has outstripped its old benchmarks---entry level feds used to be able to buy entry level condos and two income middling feds used to be able to buy homes in places that weren't too remote. The lawyer-lobbyists and others who've bid up prices aren't numerous enough to make every place like Eckington a gentrifiers paradise. Given McArdle's whining, I can only hope that she finds herself needing a new roof, basement waterproofing and few other costly things her inspector missed, along with a long period of stagnant property values. That will keep her in her house long enough to realize that nothing is inevitable.

by Rich on Oct 21, 2010 8:27 pm • link • report

As a 20-something white male making less than $30,000 a year who has lived in Bloomingdale (neighbor to Eckington) for about a year and a half, I have often thought about what my presence in this neighborhood means. I have generally felt welcomed by long-term residents as I have become engaged in community affairs.

Though it's true that no neighborhood has achieved the "Jane Jacobean ideal" described in the piece, Bloomingdale has a lot going for it. We have a locally-owned corner organic food market and Sunday farmers' market that sell healthy food at prices lower than what one would find at a Whole Foods or Yes Organic Market (the farmers' market even accepts WIC and CSFP checks). We also have an exemplary community park and cooperative urban farm.

I appreciate @Ken Archer's thoughts, and tend to follow them (I eat more than 2/3 of my meals at home, I work out at the public rec center), but I think it's important to support locally-owned businesses in your neighborhood from the standpoint of promoting mixed-uses and vibrancy, and of keeping the money in the community.

I don't consider a locally-owned neighborhood pub or coffee shop, or even the park, to be "excessive luxuries." These are amenities every urban neighborhood should have, and they should be priced affordably.

Having more corner stores selling healthy food at affordable prices, instead of just junk food, liquor and cigarettes, is a good place to start, as is the creation of community assets run cooperatively by neighbors -- Crispus Attucks Park and Common Good City Farm are good examples.

by Malcolm K on Oct 21, 2010 11:19 pm • link • report

spookiness has inspired me to crock pot some pot roast tomorrow morning so it'll be ready for dinner. I might even pressure cook some beef bourguignon in about 30 minutes for lunch. Thanks guys!

by monkeyrotica on Oct 22, 2010 6:28 am • link • report

One thing missing from the often quoted Jane Jacob ideal is the sense of community. I think this is a cultural thing that's been lost in most communities thanks to technology. Further more the corner grocery that survived supermarkets rise in the 50's was due largley to the inability to get the foot print required to generate economies of scale in Jacob's Village neighborhood.

In the 50's when many of these innercity neighborhoods went from while to black, a white person staying or moving to the neighborhood would be thought of as dumb, crazy, or worst, a traitor to their race. Chances are they where either too poor to leave or could care less what race lived there. Fifteen years ago, I fit in this last category when I moved to Logan Circle. While I got the occasional racist remarks like "go back to Virginia" etc, it never occured to me that I was displacing or hurting the neighborhood any more than if I was black. It'll be nice when this white guilt dies down because I'd rather be liked or disliked for my shiny personality than for something as superficial as the color of my skin, what ever personal hangups I may have.

All that being said, having public services unequally doled out by wealth is unacceptable, what ever race(s) call the neighborhoods home.

by Thayer-D on Oct 22, 2010 6:38 am • link • report

Today's gentrification is so much faster than the gentrification of the 70s-90s.

This is due to the (a) hollowing out of the middle class and greater divide between rich and poor, such that newcomers are able to bid up housing prices far beyond what natives could afford, (b) higher percentage of income spent on consumption, dropping cash like carpet bombs in unsuspecting communities that attracts boutiques and eateries and (c) the growing migration back into cities.

This accelerated pace of displacement renders the usual leftist market interventions - force rents down or give folks money to pay housing costs - even less effective than before.

The only solution, as a result, is for the actual market participants to change their behavior. Specifically, (1) newcomers need to stop throwing money around so conspicuously and (2) intense retraining of lower class workers who missed the global knowledge economy bullet train needs to occur.

These may sound like pipedreams, but there is no other solution.

by Ken Archer on Oct 22, 2010 8:17 am • link • report

I for one promise to stop throwing money around poor neighborhoods so conspicuously, especially in my favored carpet bomb technique. If I feel the irresistable urge though, I will pamphlet the community before hand so they can prepare themselves with bags to scoop it up. They may even start up a business, like intense retraining of their fellow lower class neighbors to be web page designers and other undermaned services of our fast paced global knowledge economy.

by Thayer-D on Oct 22, 2010 8:34 am • link • report

@Ken Archer,

I'm not sure how successful you will be on your first solution. Newcomers (and a large number of longer term residents) are attracted to the city, DC and others, specifically for the eateries and boutiques you decry.

As to the second point, couldn't agree more. The overwhelming cry in the last election seemed to be "housing and jobs". We wouldn't have to subsidize either if all of our residents could compete in the modern economy. I've got nothing against housing support, or the government assisting folks in finding employment, but to what end? I'd prefer it be approached as a stop gap measure, until the recipients are able to stand on their own two feet and not need our help.

If that seems paternalistic of me, well, ok.

by TimK on Oct 22, 2010 8:37 am • link • report

We vastly overstate the historical importance of cooking at home, especially when talking about cities. People did spend money differently, 100 years ago: those of even moderate means could hire domestic servants, and most people living in multi-unit dwellings didn't even have kitchens.

It's hard for us to understand this now, but until well into the 20th century, the dominant forms of multi-unit housing were residential hotels, SROs, and rooming houses, catering to people of all economic and social classes. Units in these housing types don't have kitchens.

Read between the lines of books written in American cities. There's a reason why middle-class characters, especially unmarried ones, seem to be spending a lot of time in the coffee shop or the diner.

I'd wager that people cooked at home about as often as they do now. People went downstairs to the restaurant in their building, or out to a corner coffee shop, or off to a restaurant for more exotic meals.

by David R. on Oct 22, 2010 8:45 am • link • report

Also, what you call conspicuous consumption, I call "letting women have careers."

by David R. on Oct 22, 2010 8:48 am • link • report

So let me get this straight:

- Suburbanization and "white flight," enabled by highway construction, was terrible for America's cities for all sorts of reasons.

- Affluent whites moving back into the cities is ALSO bad; that gentrification and the accompanying tax revenue is terrible for America's cities.

So which way do you want to have it?

by EJ on Oct 22, 2010 9:30 am • link • report

@EJ: Logically, people never should have left, and the poor would then be living in sub-standard housing on the edge in the not favored quarter.

Not that I support this view, but it's the logical conclusion.

by Michael Perkins on Oct 22, 2010 9:37 am • link • report

Bizarre economic advice: Stop gentrification by not eating out at local restaurants. Which means less need for employees at those restaurants and less sales taxes. Which means more unemployment and less tax revenue.

I believe the North Koreans practice this form of anti-consumptionism and they've clearly perfected the anti-gentrification policy.

by Fritz on Oct 22, 2010 9:44 am • link • report

I moved to Logan Circle from Brooklyn ready to spend my money at local bakeries, shops and restaurants. But aside from some of the higher end places, I see very few small businesses, at least to the extent I enjoyed in Brooklyn. Give me a small, family owned bakery over Whole Foods bakery any day. I would rather spend my money at some small pupusa stand than at Chipotle. People with a little disposable income to burn are not what's hurting communities. Leaving the house once in a while and spending money in the community is what makes communities vibrant.

by Jess on Oct 22, 2010 10:28 am • link • report

I do not find it surprising that conspicuous consumption is a negative aspect of gentrification (higher rents leading to the displacement of local businesses and the loss of their benefits to the community - Dupont Circle comes to mind). Furthermore, encouraging people to eat at home more often (most likely a healthier lifestyle), while investing more of that money in the community [sponsoring block parties, school fundraisers, etc.] seems like a recipe for healthy neighborhoods to me. The problem I see is how to: 1) get newcomers interested/committed to being a part of their neighborhood beyond just as individual consumers, and 2) build community infrastructure (PTAs, informal street networks, church groups) that would bring together people with diverse lifestyles.
This and the complement of gentrification - supporting opportunities for economic advancement for 'long-time residents' - seem needed in DC.

by DCster on Oct 22, 2010 10:33 am • link • report

This whole conversation depresses me. Someone sees a neighborhood with liquor stores and chinese takeout places and thinks, apparently, "it's good to see that it's not being ruined by conspicuous consumption [of the sort I disapprove]!" The sort of "community infrastructure" people talk about is generally incompatible with "diverse lifestyles" because with a limited pool of money/resources, priorities are going to get pulled in different directions (dog parks vs. murals, farmers' markets vs. street festivals, swim teams vs. football teams). Not to mention the fact that DC purposely and consistently limits retail and commercial development, meaning that there just aren't that many places for small businesses to go before those places get "discovered" and gentrified, to be replaced with higher-margin retail.

I'm not very sanguine about this.

by JustMe on Oct 22, 2010 10:52 am • link • report

And this entire discussion is why the original article is right, and it is inevitable. As soon as the advocates start speaking, in comes the bazillion of invasive demands that exceed any level of sanity. How do we solve the issue? Let's collect it all.

1. More subsidies! Reduce the amount of market level housing stock and throw in more set asides. Will this raise people's taxes and price people in the middle out? Sure! But there is no expense someone else can't bear foir my convictions!
2. Stop eating out you bastards!
3. Shop at places you don't want to shop at to support existing businesses. Do they carry anything you want? Who cares, as there is no inconvenience or expense other people can't bear...;)
4. Tax and spend a lot more to have "job opportunities". What does that mean? It can't mean education, as that is a generational fix and doesn't have an impact on immediate gentrification...but let's add social policies I like under this banner.
5. Don't ask for a nice gym...use the far inferior public facilities, then spend decades lobbying for better public facilities! It won't help you, but you'll do the important task of being "part of the community".

And you wonder why people eventually throw up their hands and give up?

by John on Oct 22, 2010 11:12 am • link • report

Well, John, you don't provide any compelling solutions, either, instead shooting forth with a bunch of resentment, even going so far as to denigrate initiatives to provide job opportunities in something other than fields like law and think tanks, which don't really help economic development in the vast majority of DC.

by JustMe on Oct 22, 2010 11:29 am • link • report

Thank you John. Don't forget that you should also join the PTA even if you don't have kids and join a church even if you don't believe in god because these things are good for participating in the community.

by Jason on Oct 22, 2010 11:37 am • link • report

Having purchased and moved into two gentrafying neibrborhoods in my short home owning life in the last 10 years I have made a number of observations. This is as much about race as it is about class. Even more so in America. Most Americans are blind to this having grown up in its midst. As an immigrant here the racial and class tensions in this country are stunning and most visible in neibhorhoods in transition.

Everyone wants good clean well stocked grocery stores that are affordable right?? Everyone wants more affordable housing for everyone right? Everyone wants less crime right?

The model we have now is broken and the one being proposed to replace it replies too much on hand outs from taxpayers who are being blamed for rightfully trying to maximize their purchasing power. We need a model that improves quality of life for everyone.

If not for the greedy banks and mortgage companies who took advantage of the system and recently crashed our economy encouraging more ownership for everyone which we did in the recent past was a good approach. Folks from all sorts of background and culture become vested in their neighborhoods when they own their homes.

Having different prices for different folks for the same thing is always going to rub people the wrong way because fundamentally it is unfair. Buying what you can afford is the way to go. Ensuring there is affordable units to buy is the way to to do this. Having a mix of housing types and prices with race criteria may seem a bit socialist but places like Singapore who are highly capitalistic have made this work. Paternalistic free market Capitalism at its best. Obviously this would never work in this country, but it is possible.

by sig2noise on Oct 22, 2010 11:38 am • link • report

join a church even if you don't believe in god because these things are good for participating in the community.

The funny thing about the church is that the churches of the "local community" are made up of lots of Marylanders, and the gentrifiers, if they do go to church, are heading out to Maryland or to one of the "church districts" (like Cathedral Heights) whose churches were never intended as resources for "the local community" where they're located in the first place.

by JustMe on Oct 22, 2010 11:58 am • link • report

@JustMe - good point about the churches. The church next to my house in Columbia Heights not only fills the streets with MD cars on Sunday, but also has a For Sale sign stuck in front of it - they're dying to unload it to move to a new property in - you guessed it - MD. Of course, the buyer probably will be a developer, who will put up more condos and be excoriated for contributing to displacement (although I certainly agree we don't need any more condos in Columbia Heights!). However, those who sold in the first place are somehow never mentioned as contributing to gentrification.

As for the "eating in will reduce gentrification" nonsense, many of the areas that are in the early stages of gentrification are food wastelands, without a fresh fruit or vegetable available for blocks around. So newcomers (and long-time residents) are supposed to cook, but have to travel out of the neighborhood to get remotely healthy food - and this will promote community? Weird.

by dcd on Oct 22, 2010 12:21 pm • link • report

So newcomers (and long-time residents) are supposed to cook, but have to travel out of the neighborhood to get remotely healthy food - and this will promote community?

Who says you're *have* to eat healthy food? There's a lot of readily available overpriced, unhealthy garbage that predatory "markets" have been foisting on their captive audiences for decades. If you have any interest in solidarity and community-building, that's what you should be eating.

Rap Sacks and Pineapple Soda are the fuel of the Revolution!

by oboe on Oct 22, 2010 12:46 pm • link • report

Perhaps the PTA and church aren't places that appeal to everyone, and obviously lots of churchs have become disconnected from their local communities. That said, I don't see why you have to be a parent to enjoy being involved with a neighborhood school, or believe in God to attend a church bake-sale. And I do think there are (or could be) venues for mingling that appeal to most people regardless of income/race/family status - organized block parties, public parks/fountains/gyms, local restaurants.

I don't think it's wrong for people to spend money on things they like, and only socialize with people who are like themselves (it's certainly not uncommon). That said, there are plenty of places where you can do that. If you are going to live in a densely-inhabited city, why not go outside of your comfort zone a bit and try to socialize with your fellow residents - it could be enjoyable.

by DCster on Oct 22, 2010 12:51 pm • link • report

@DCster,

I completely agree. If your primary mode of expression is through private consumption, you will in your own little way undermine community. Community and economy are two sides of the same coin.

If participation in the public life of the community, just like the natives of the hood you're entering, is your primary mode of expression, then you will strengthen the community.

The other side of the solution is a major investment in retraining across the city, beyond even what Gray has envisioned.

by Ken Archer on Oct 22, 2010 1:13 pm • link • report

What does "private consumption" mean or "primary mode of expression". And how does that equate with socializing with fellow residents?

by sig2noise on Oct 22, 2010 1:25 pm • link • report

Gentrification is a terrible, terrible thing.

Look at Columbia Heights - it used to have so much more character and be so much more vibrant! Nothing adds character to a neighborhood like weekly homicide.

Now there are just ugly businesses and restaurants there that employ more people and bring in more tax revenue for the neighborhood and city.

Worst of all, you can walk the streets at night there now. All the people that moved in should go back to Fairfax where they belong!

by pugnacious on Oct 22, 2010 1:48 pm • link • report

Along the same lines as the churches...all three corner stores within a block of my house are run by Marylanders. Spending local obviously helps keep the corner store open, but what incentive does the out-of-town owner have to make his store more community-centered? It isn't his community

by Dina on Oct 22, 2010 2:03 pm • link • report

Sigh. And now tack on supporting local churches, even if you don't believe in god. Oh, and the fact that most of them are against gay rights when most "gentrifiers" are socially liberal...shut up! Help them raise money anyway!

Again, let's just glom on every pet cause to this issue...and then insult people for just shutting out the noise and giving up.

by John on Oct 22, 2010 2:30 pm • link • report

Teachers, police, firemen typically earn more than the 80% AMI guidelines, @ $60k, especially with overtime, bonuses, and in the case of police, side jobs. That said, you have to have a decent job even to afford a unit targeted at 30% AMI, about $30,000 per year. There are a lot of jobs in DC in that $30-$60k range in the service sector, clerical, security, etc.

by mtp on Oct 22, 2010 3:53 pm • link • report

Let's look at this from the other side regarding these "local" churches, and the argument that "gentrifiers" should wholeheartedly support the local church in some way.

I've found that there's zero outreach to the community of new residents by these churches. I live within a few blocks of three huge churches, and I've never been approached by anyone from the church, had someone stop by and welcome me to the neighborhood, maybe had a pie delivered, etc, etc. Heck, there was a small church two doors down from my house--which has since moved--and no one even bothered to leaflet my door with an invitation to Sunday services. This from a religion whose primary edict is evangelizing.

The most I've gotten from parishioners is either the stink-eye as I walk past, or a grudging "Hello." Not exactly the picture of Christian outreach. You'd have to be an idiot not to understand the dynamics that drive this, but sorry, community runs two ways.

At some point, I think a lot of folks just throw up their hands and say it's too much effort for too little pay-off. I live in a neighborhood with a lot of income diversity. It would be nice to continue to have income diversity. But it's about #12 on the list of things I care about.

by oboe on Oct 22, 2010 3:58 pm • link • report

"Fifteen years ago, I fit in this last category when I moved to Logan Circle. While I got the occasional racist remarks like "go back to Virginia" etc, it never occured to me that I was displacing or hurting the neighborhood any more than if I was black."

Fair enough Thayer,D. Except that now, and after all this is a capitalist country, that the monied class --- read generally white --- has moved in almost completely in areas such as Capital Hill and, by extension, Trinidad the "newcomers" seem to walk with a big stick of 'entitlement'. It is now the reverse, and so when 'Leroy' goes back into the 'neighborhood' to visit his mother, he is given strange and questioning looks of "what are you doing here?" Panacea indeed. "Until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes." --- Emperor Haile Selassie

by Lawson Wellington on Oct 22, 2010 4:01 pm • link • report

the monied class --- read generally white

True, though the "monied class" that's moved onto Capitol Hill (and the rest of DC) is markedly more diverse than the country as a whole.

by oboe on Oct 22, 2010 4:43 pm • link • report

@oboe,

Generally agree, except that I shout note that Holy Comforter St. Cypriot (16th and East Capitol) has been walking around reaching out to neighbors the last few weeks. Refreshing change, actually!

by TimK on Oct 22, 2010 4:48 pm • link • report

Alex Baca, I think Megan just gave you quite a bit of direction in your future studies:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/10/gentrification-and-its-discontents/65034/

Any response?

by brian on Oct 22, 2010 5:13 pm • link • report

The church on my block also does outreach - pamphleting, posters (they haven't baked me a pie, but that might be asking a little much) but I haven't exactly been a 'good resident' and attended anything they've done. For various reasons, churchs probably won't be the center of DC community to the extent they once were, but it would be a pity if nothing that played the same role in fostering community (not preaching intolerance) took their place.

by DCster on Oct 22, 2010 5:19 pm • link • report

...let's be sure to carefully delineate between gentrification and displacement—and quit lamenting.

Not a big fan of this post. It's condescending and too preachy. And I say this as someone who has often (daily?) engaged in smug preaching.

From title to closing line, it felt like I was reading another 'Elections Matter' blog post from some self-important blogger responding to the drama-queen NJ governor's (re)decision to kill the nj chunnel again. You mean gentrification has some ill effects and we should do something about it? Wow - I guess you're right - thanks for that - I'll get right on it - right after i go out to eat at the only chic restaurant i can afford, Mickey-D's, and then decide whether i want to make my house payment or my car payment this month, and then find a job.

so, where/how/why should we delineate between gentrification and displacement? without displacement, gentrification isn't even interesting. it'd be like war without death -- nobody would even bother talking about it. gentrification always produces displacement. done and done. now, let's be honest about it, talk about it, give propers to the people who were brave enough to talk about it honestly, and try to figure out some solutions.

I don't know McArdle's politics, or writing - other than the piece (and follow-up) referenced - so maybe that's why I found her post to be fairly tame and non-controversial, and valuable, if not God-like in its moral purity. for me, it's often enough for writers to be just writers -- they don't have to solve all of the world's problems -- just writing about them in a coherent/cogent/honest way is often enough.

and by the end of this post, i felt like i learned nothing about how to stop/slow/reduce displacement. maybe there's even a convincing case to be made about this $3 million program, but i don't feel that case was made by this post.

in fairness, i think gentrification/displacement is possibly a difficult problem to solve. i know very simple answers/solutions to 99.9% of the world's problems, but this particular problem i haven't solved yet.

some follow-up comments...

pot roast sounds alsome.

as for community-building and local businesses, check out black star coop in austin, tx, and arizmendi bakery coop in sf bay area (which seems to be opening a new bakery weekly).

property taxes suck -- let's replace most of it with a real progressive income tax. that would help alleviate gentrification/displacement, and improve schools and make schooling more fair.

also, instead of subsidizing home ownership for poor people, i say we should stop subsidizing it for rich people. i think this would help alleviate some of the displacement problem (tho, i have no real evidence/proof). David Harvey is the prof who made headlines recently when he railed against bike lanes in NYC (as part of his blasting of the gentrification of The City), and talked about the Right To The City movement. in this video, he talks about the massive subsidy for home ownership in the US - something this blog has talked about before.

the 'modern economy' is a bad joke. technology is a bad joke. capitalism and american libertarianism are bad jokes. 'retraining' is a bad joke -- what are you going to be retrained in? the jobs are gone, and they ain't comin back, by design, and largely due to technology.

as for churches, myself and friends have dabbled in and continue to be interested in churches and church-like institutions for a variety of reasons -- not the least of which is their awesome community-building aspects. i tried what i would call a 'humanist church' for a while (tho, many would object to that terminology), and it was cool.

Tech Feature Request: i like the 'authors' page. i want my own 'commenter' page. i think a $25 yearly 'subscription fee' to GGW should get me that commenter page, yeah? :-D seriously, tho, it'd be nice if GGW had some financial security just in case. or just have some extra cash laying around to do cool special projects, etc.

by Peter Smith on Oct 23, 2010 4:09 am • link • report

@Ken (2) Cook at home for nearly every meal: Eating out multiple times per week increases rents for existing, less expensive food options. Cooking at home doesn't.

That's right, let's bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator so that we are all 'equal' ...

Simple economics will tell you that what you want to do is encourage spending vs. discouraging it as you are proposing. Do you want wealthy people keeping their money in the bank where it won't do anyone any good (at least at the local level), or do you rather they spend it everywhere around them. The people who own, manage, work in, and supply these local restaurants get some of that money when the 'wealthy' person spends his money in a local restaurant. And they in turn can go out and re-spend that money on something else ... such as paying their rent in the neighborhood. I.e., Bottom line is the more people spend the better everyone makes out. Your proposal is a proposal for stagnation. It got tried out in the Soviet Union ... and was a total failure.

by Lance on Oct 23, 2010 11:15 am • link • report

@Lance, I'm guessing he wants that 'wealthy' person to have all that 'excess' income taxed away from them so we can further reinforce the lowest common denominator.

by ChrisW on Oct 23, 2010 11:16 am • link • report

Bottom line is the more people spend the better everyone makes out

The more money people spend on rent, the worse it is for other renters who don't have that money to spend. The appearance of wealthy people into a neighborhood means that they can economically out-compete their neighbors in a competition for local goods and services. Not sure,Lance, why this simple fact is so difficult for you to understand or why you frothed about the Soviet Union: I guess your reaction was "I don't know what this man is saying. I'll call him a Commie!" Get help, or maybe actually try to see things from your neighbors' perspectives, for once.

by Tyro on Oct 23, 2010 1:02 pm • link • report

Tyro what I was responding to was the suggestion that people not eat out as that supposed raised rent prices. Anything making a neighborhood nicer will raise the rents . It's a fact of life that the nicer a place is the more high income earners it will attract. Your analysis misses the mark because people don't pay higher rents just to pay higher higher rents. Ken at least understood that part. He was just wrong suggesting people shouldn't participate in making a neighborhood nicer by spending money to help local hustlerneessbua

by Lance on Oct 23, 2010 7:24 pm • link • report

*businesses

by Lance on Oct 23, 2010 7:26 pm • link • report

Lance, I am forced to conclude that you are either being willfully obtuse or that you have no idea how communities function, economically-- which probably means that you contribute to and support a lot of social problems.

It is a simple fact of life that both residential and commercial landlords will market themselves to the highest bidders. People in a neighborhood with lots of money to spend will naturally be willing to pay more for local services, and businesses will cater to those customers rather than the customers with less money to spend. Meanwhile, commercial landlords will displace lower-margin businesses in favor of businesses that cater to these wealthier clientele. Residential landlords will want to get money from peoplewilling to spend moreof it on rents than people with less money make. For all your claimed knowledge of how things "really work," you're awfully clueless when it comes to understanding consequences and effects. Telling people "support gentrification because it will mean you will be priced out of your neighborhood and the stores you like will be replaced with stores that offer items and services you won't be able to afford" does not make for a very compelling argument. Of course, DC is rather business hostile, so this process can be arrested somewhat.

by Tyro on Oct 23, 2010 7:44 pm • link • report

Definitions:

"The Rich" -Anyone who has a shiny anything regardless of how acquired or makes more money than myself regardless of how hard that person worked to achieve the salary.

"Gentrifiers" White working folks who buy houses in "historically black neighborhoods" no that the drug violence of the 80's and 90's has ended.

"Historically Black Neighborhood I" -A neighborhood that was abandoned en masse by various ethnic minorities after the 1968 Black riots. This occurred 40 years ago, leading to less diversity than previously existed in DC.

"Historically Black Neighborhood II" -A neighborhood where houses were allowed to disintegrate due to lack of basic upkeep or any maintenance whatsoever.

"High Unemployment" -Lack of employment opportunities for 20-50 year old adult men with a checkered criminal record, an excess of gaps in employment, and a sub-high school education.

Having lived through the mismanagement of the 80's and early 90's (often attributed to Barry, but in reality a reflection of the mood of the majority of the city's residents), no one should feel at all sorry for anyone currently being displaced. Everyone who lived here had ample opportunity when prices were depressed to acquire a house, a high school diploma, a community college diploma, and to slowly but surely acquire enough wealth to have a home that they could chose to retire in, or sell to "gentrifiers" to pad their twilight years.

Everyone alive in DC today had Life, Liberty and the Right to Pursue Happiness. Happiness in many cases did not include taking steps to participate in the economic world outside of the DC political cocoon that existed as a temporary historical blip. Unfortunately, the local population was unable to capitalize on having 30 years of unfettered political and economic power ending spectacularly in the city going bankrupt from fiscal mismanagement. It's disappointing that folks bought in hook, line and sinker, but current voting patterns do not indicate that the important lessons were learned. For anyone who is looking for an accurate sociological explanation for what is happening in the city one should (re)read the story of the Grasshopper and the Ant.

by DCer on Oct 23, 2010 8:14 pm • link • report

@Tryo It is a simple fact of life that both residential and commercial landlords will market themselves to the highest bidders. People in a neighborhood with lots of money to spend will naturally be willing to pay more for local services, and businesses will cater to those customers rather than the customers with less money to spend. Meanwhile, commercial landlords will displace lower-margin businesses in favor of businesses that cater to these wealthier clientele. Residential landlords will want to get money from peoplewilling to spend moreof it on rents than people with less money make.

And you see something wrong with this?

by Lance on Oct 23, 2010 10:39 pm • link • report

After reading yours and McArdle's points I hardly see how your points are actually helpful.

I am a resident of a community that is being gentrified. I live in income-subsidized housing as a recent entry-level college graduate. I am the only one that I've met. The rest in the community are poor single-moms (>75%). The two blocks surrounding are all rented.

A Cafe run by a West-African just moved in on the corner, and I'm excited about what kind of gentrification that will bring. I like having neighbors of different socio-economic backgrounds. Its nice to know that one street over is a block of 800k luxury condos and that I can sip and chat with people of all backgrounds. Is this a community in transition?

Certainly. I guarantee that the community will become more white, and more affluent in the next decade. Is that harmful? I hardly think so. I am very unimpressed by what public housing and income-subsidized units do for a community. Even as deliberate as these incentives and grant dollars have been for the community, people are drawn to others of similar socio-economic standing and preference. That is irrespective of your race, class, or culture.

by Chase on Oct 25, 2010 1:10 pm • link • report

I guarantee that the community will become more white, and more affluent in the next decade. Is that harmful? I hardly think so.

you're free to think that displacement (of poor/working-class people/families/children who have often been in their homes/neighborhoods for years/decades) is not harmful. as for me, i'll roll with Jane Jacobs on that one.

Even as deliberate as these incentives and grant dollars have been for the community, people are drawn to others of similar socio-economic standing and preference. That is irrespective of your race, class, or culture.

i think this could explain some part of some people's behavior, but gentrification, by definition, means that people are 'drawn to others of dissimilar (read: poorer) socio-economic standing' -- while most/all of us would prefer to have adequate money rather than not have it ('preference'). and that's only part of the story, too -- when i rented in gentrifying Brooklyn, it was mainly for the cheap rent. and i have lived in places that were 'too rich' for me. and many people just prefer diverse communities, which can be relatively short-lived because of this problem of gentrification/'fast money'.

i don't see any reason to give up on the gentrification problem -- that is, if you think it is a problem, and/or has problems that can/should be addressed.

by Peter Smith on Oct 25, 2010 1:35 pm • link • report

I think the paradox which everyone gets is that living in a shitty place is cheap, and living in a nice place is expensive. Talk to some of the folks who lived in ungentrified neighborhoods "back in the day." They *hated* the violence, the crime, the filth, etc, etc... The residents who got decent middle-class jobs packed up and moved out. The ones who couldn't, stayed. Were there good things happening too? Friendships? Community? Of course. But a biiig part of this is nostalgia.

Now that crime's down, and random street shootings have somewhat abated, property values are going up. Most anti-gentrification Utopians here seem to yearn for a situation that can never exist: where there's crime-free, clean streets with tons of comprehensive city services...and no upward pressure on rents/housing prices.

To put on my asshole hat for a second: being poor sucks. You can mitigate this a bit (mostly only programs that target the second-generation work), but that's just the way it is. And no amount of exhorting middle-class Americans to live on rice, beans, and warm tap-water will really change things.

by oboe on Oct 25, 2010 3:08 pm • link • report

I hail from a middle-class to upper class city outside of Chicago. (and I am happy with my DC relocation choice). Its neighborhood may consist of antique luxury homes off the lakeshore and three blocks west are large spacious apartments that have working class, middle-class and section-8 renters with a park across the street and Whole Foods around the corner, across from the local grocery store. REAL mixed income neighborhoods are possible, if you really want it. DC's "gentrifiers" appear not to be genuinely interested . Most of you who rent won't take vouchers, legal or not. Most consider those that use them to be a "risk". When in fact most are single parents with children trying to make minimum income stretch while they pursue a degree in the evenings or work two jobs, so that eventually they can do more than just "make it". But that is not what most of your gentrifiers see, nor want to see.
I live in Shaw, and watched a 1 bedroom basement apartment go from 800/month with original owners (student rented it)to 1350 a month with the new young and groovy owners. Come on... no one really cares what happens to those who are not part of the nouveau riche in DC. But you will soon enough... society pays one way or another for its poor and excluded. As you open your coffee houses, vogue salons, sushi bars and clothing boutiques selling $400.00 Jimmy Choo shoes...only hiring folks who already have full-tme jobs, instead of Tony who lives up the block with 3 kids... you'll see. Chicago did. Crime is insane! So theorize via economic models etc. till your heart's content. Until we all get off our high horses and have real conversations that INCLUDE the people we discuss, it's just hot air.

by K.T. on Oct 25, 2010 5:25 pm • link • report