Hmm.

Unemployment: Do I smell deja-vu? They are saying unemployment ins't bad if you factor in ACS data, but as we've seen ACS data is suspect. Or is suspect for tract-level and not ward level?

Displacement: kicking out poor black people and replacing them with rich black people doesn't seem to really improve diversity.

by charlie on Apr 5, 2011 8:35 am  

Is it just me or are those Virginia advertisements a little disconcerting? I've seen advertisements with screwy metro maps (green line being blue, orange line being yellow, connections I had never seen before, etc.) I have no problem seeing them go.

by Max on Apr 5, 2011 8:48 am  

@charlie

You are on one of those kicks again where you get an idea and then just run with it no matter what anyone else tells you.

but as we've seen ACS data is suspect
ACS data is not "suspect." You are taking the criticism some of us had about one particular use of ACS data (using the population counts to estimate ward-level population changes) and using that to smear any use of the data. This is seriously misguided.

ACS data is highly useful for looking at population-level demographic stats: race, commute stats, employment status, etc.

In one sentence for you: ACS data is NOT good at counting population (how many people in total live here), but it IS good at counting demographics (what percentage of people have certain characteristics.)

by MLD on Apr 5, 2011 8:59 am  

Re: gentrification. The article unwittingly undercuts the whole premise of the "gentrification label" with the above post. Proponents say that it's not about race, it's about class. By stating that "gentrification" is ok, because it attracts wealthy AA, you explicitly state that gentrification is about displacing AA only. If it's only about displacing AA, then all of the economic arguments can be safely ignored as they are not the crux of the issue.

The logical dissonance of the 'movement' is astounding.

by ahk on Apr 5, 2011 9:08 am  

@MLD; that is a nice summary, but what the linked article is doing is measuring unemployment by using ACS population counts -- which, as you have said, isn't good.

by charlie on Apr 5, 2011 9:11 am  

I know that it is against urbanist principles to separate pedestrians from the road, but as a pedestrian I much prefer the walk ways like those city center is building. It is a vastly better experience.

by MW on Apr 5, 2011 9:24 am  

I don't think David's summary of the article really captures what the article was saying re: gentrification.

The second paragraph of the Time article offers a perfectly good summation:

A new study by researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder, University of Pittsburgh and Duke University, examined Census data from more than 15,000 neighborhoods across the U.S. in 1990 and 2000, and found that low-income non-white households did not disproportionately leave gentrifying areas. In fact, researchers found that at least one group of residents, high school–educated blacks, were actually more likely to remain in gentrifying neighborhoods than in similar neighborhoods that didn't gentrify — even increasing as a fraction of the neighborhood population, and seeing larger-than-expected gains in income.

1. Gentrification does not lead to higher than normal levels of displacement (this doesn't mean it reduced displacement, however)
2. Gentrifiers are not just white, they are middle class people of all races - ergo they add diversity
3. Most of the income gains in gentrified areas came from people with only a high school education - justification for the advocacy of mixed income communities.

David's summary is somewhat confusing since he ledes with reduced displacement and then focuses on what the racial makeup of the gentrifiers is.

by Alex B. on Apr 5, 2011 9:24 am  

@charlie

It's not using population counts, it's using the "are you working?" data collected by the ACS.

by MLD on Apr 5, 2011 9:32 am  

Displacement: kicking out poor black people and replacing them with rich black people doesn't seem to really improve diversity.

Right, but that's not what happens. As Alex B touched on, in ungentrifying areas, everyone who has the economic means to get out does. This leads to a situation where the poorest of the poor stay; and folks who have no other options move into poverty-stricken areas as they fall out of the middle-class.

with gentrification, you have upward-mobility in situ by the formerly poor; and you've got middle-class and upper middle-class moving in as housing stock is freed up by retirees and natural out-migration. Those newcomers are significantly more diverse than the national (and regional) population at large.

So basically the "old-timer" population diversifies in place economically, and where there is some natural movement of the existing population, they are replaced by much more racially and culturally diverse new residents. And since the newcomers tend to be wealthier than the traditional residents due to increases in the price of housing for newcomers (but not for old-timers), socioeconomic diversity increases as well.

Although your term "kicking out poor people" has little supporting evidence, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that's true. You don't have to think about it to hard to realize that by taking a population that's uniformly black and uniformly poor, and replacing, say, 50% of those residents with a population that's uniformly black and uniformly rich, we've "improved diversity." Right?

by oboe on Apr 5, 2011 9:52 am  

The gentrification article is saying roughly this. All urban neighborhoods have cyclical residents, households who move most often. These tend to be un-educated, hard to employ, renters; they move more frequently than educated employable renters/owners. Uneducated renters move when the lease is up or the hard to hold job lets them go. In an ungentrifying neighborhood, these people are replaced with new un-educated, hard to employ renters. In gentrifying neighborhoods they get replaced by educated, employable households. Within both these neighborhood types, there are groups (educated, employable, blue/white collar) who tend to move less often. One of the new things the study found is that the gentrifying groups are not exclusively white. In fact the only group not represented among the gentrifiers are un-educated whites with kids (i.e. racist hill billies).

by crin on Apr 5, 2011 10:04 am  

Just to pull a couple of other highlights from the article:

Though college-educated whites accounted for 20% of the total income gain in gentrifying neighborhoods, black householders with high school degrees contributed even more: 33% of the neighborhood's total rise. In other words, a broad demographic of people in the neighborhood benefited financially. According to the study's findings, only one group — black residents who never finished high school — saw their income grow at a slower rate than predicted. But the study also suggests that these residents weren't moving out of their neighborhoods at a disproportionately higher rate than from similar neighborhoods that didn't gentrify.

...and...

A 2005 paper published in Urban Affairs Review by Lance Freeman, an assistant professor of urban planning at Columbia University, looked at a nationwide sample of neighborhoods between 1986 and 1989 and found that low-income residents tended to move out of gentrifying areas at essentially the same frequency they left other neighborhoods. The real force behind the changing face of a gentrifying community, Freeman concluded, isn't displacement but succession. When people move away as part of normal neighborhood turnover, the people who move in are generally more affluent. Community advocates may argue that succession is just another form of exclusion — if low-income people can't afford to move in — but, still, it doesn't exactly fit the popular perception of individuals being forced from their homes.

Obviously, as an "evil gentrifier" I take comfort in these studies, but it's likely few people will be swayed by them, since the anger at gentrification is usually a justifiable but misplaced anger by the disenfranchised at the mainstream of society. People who have little else tend to hate it when change comes to their neighborhood--whether it's middle-class people moving into SE DC or Hispanics moving into Wheaton, MD.

by oboe on Apr 5, 2011 10:09 am  

@MLD; perhaps you have more knowledge on this subject than I, but based on the summary:

"Every month, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) samples D.C. residents and estimates unemployment for the District as a whole. Then the D.C. Office of Labor Market Research and Information takes the BLS numbers and, using ratios derived from Census 2000, estimates the unemployment rate for each ward. "

"Ward-level unemployment estimates can be made using more recent figures – specifically the 2005-2009 five year averages from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey(ACS), the most recent available (unfortunately, the 2010 census does not cover employment status)."

Now how they calculate those ratios isn't mentioned. The last sentence indicated you have a point-- they are using ACS employment data -- since the 2010 census doesn't have it,

But the cited article on demographic trends isn't talking about employment at all -- it is talking about population growths and change.

In terms of gentrification, my issue was more with David's summary (and the assumption hidden in them) rather than the linked article. Datapoints from 1990 and 2000, however, are a bit dated.

by charlie on Apr 5, 2011 10:21 am  

@Oboe, your argument reads well. Similar to that in the article.

But, I don't agree with you that everyone who has the means to move out of ungentrifying areas, do so. Although the article didn't suggest (at least I think) I believe that even middle class blacks are more likely to remain in ungentrifying areas than are others. I'm not sure if there is a mass migration of those w/the means to do so as it has been during maybe the 90's.

The numbers cited seem odd or it could be another slow morning for me. But I question whether we should use this article overall as demonstrative of what has happened in DC. For instance, in SHAW-HU/Ledroit, have high school educated blacks really populated the area in larger numbers than college educated whites?

The same question remains for areas like Columbia Heights and U Street. Or have those areas not been considered "gentrified?"

by HogWash on Apr 5, 2011 10:37 am  

I'm saddened to see 'ground breaking' at the site of the old convention center. The city sorely needs a 'central square' where it can hold exactly the type of events that this de facto square has been used for for the last 10 years ... such as the Cirque de Soleil performances. Granted we have a lot of FEDERAL parks, but they're not OUR parks. If we're to be a 'state' in any fashion, we need our state 'fairgrounds' ... our municipal public square where all kinds of seasonal and changing events for the city can be held ... without federal interference or federal park rules. This land owned by the city was the perfect spot for this. It was OUR city land and should have remained so. I'm saddened to see greed taking this from us. Someone's going to make a lot of money from this ... and we, the citizens of this city, are going to be all the poorer for it.

by Lance on Apr 5, 2011 10:45 am  

The convention center was demolished in 2005. We didn't start using it for events until 2006 at the earliest. So, no we haven't been using this as a public square for "ten years". Mostly this been used as a giant parking lot. The circuses and tennis matches were very few and far between.

by TM on Apr 5, 2011 10:55 am  

@crin Your summary is informative but for me wholly marred by your final hateful ugly comment. I encourage the editors of GGW to remove it.

by Tina on Apr 5, 2011 10:58 am  

@HogWash

The article doesn't say the gentrifying areas haven't changed - clearly, they have.

The point is that the areas were not static prior to gentrification. The population in those areas already has a high level of natural turnover. In non-gentrifying areas, the newcomers just have similar demographics to those who leave.

The point of all this research is that when gentrification happens, the only thing that really changes is who moves in - it doesn't necessarily change who moves out, or the rate at which they move out.

Obviously, anyone can find anecdotes that either support or don't support that thesis, but there have been several of these quantitative studies showing the same thing now.

by Alex B. on Apr 5, 2011 11:00 am  

@Lance

Granted we have a lot of FEDERAL parks, but they're not OUR parks. If we're to be a 'state' in any fashion, we need our state 'fairgrounds' ... our municipal public square where all kinds of seasonal and changing events for the city can be held ... without federal interference or federal park rules.

So, the solution should be to give DC control over those local parks that are only federal because of anachronistic governance structures.

The CityCenter site has always been developed. I thought you C100 types were all about the sanctity of the L'Enfant plan. The plan called for this to development. This is a great thing for DC.

DC has a massive amount of park and open space that could be far better managed and utilized than it is today. And, as TM notes, despite the cool events that the parking lot hosted, it was still a regular old parking lot 95% of the time.

by Alex B. on Apr 5, 2011 11:04 am  

RE: ACS data issues

In my opinion, the DCFPI post on ward-level unemployment is too vague with regards to methodology to provide any fodder for argument. It is not clear exactly what data they use from the CPS, ACS, or any other source. For example, what exactly are the "ratios derived from the 2000 Census"? Or the similar cryptically named "2005-2009 ACS ratios"? The naming suggests to me that the author is using population count ratios, not unemployment data. (If they were using unemployment variables from the ACS, then why would they take an average over 2005-2009? Why not use the most recent ACS survey?) But one can't simply use population ratios to back out ward-level unemployment from unemployment for DC as a whole. So the whole post remains somewhat cryptic to me.

And anyway, I have a hard time believing that a 1% difference in ward-level unemployment numbers from the ACS would be significant. Even in a large sample like the ACS, the sample gets pretty small once you get down the ward level. Standard errors for associated point estimates at that level would make debate over a 1% difference pretty useless, in my opinion. And also there is the problem of many researchers, even seasoned PhDs, still not understanding survey methods well enough to properly apply the weights provided with complex surveys like the ACS (which would further bias standard errors).

by gogurt on Apr 5, 2011 11:12 am  

By the way, for more reading on the ACS, associated labor force estimates derived from the ACS, and how they compare to estimates derived from the CPS or LAUS, see:

http://www.bls.gov/lau/acsqa.htm

by gogurt on Apr 5, 2011 11:15 am  

Based on this:
Ward-level unemployment estimates can be made using more recent figures – specifically the 2005-2009 five year averages from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey(ACS), the most recent available (unfortunately, the 2010 census does not cover employment status). (Emphasis mine)

It looks like they are using employment status numbers from the ACS, not population numbers.

As to why they would use the 2005-2009 estimate rather than 2009, the 2005-2009 numbers are more accurate because they are a bigger sample than 2009 alone.

by MLD on Apr 5, 2011 11:23 am  

@gogurt; thanks.

by charlie on Apr 5, 2011 11:31 am  

I think this is what is going on re: unemployment.

The BLS only gives DC-level data for unemployment. Perhaps they also offer some PUMS level data, but even that only offers 5 sub-geographies for all of DC. The unemployment rate is only an estimate anyway.

To calculate the rate for a specific, small area (like a ward), you need to have some sort of demographic framework to scale that data down, adjusting for historical demographics.

What the DCFPI piece is saying is that the old method for scaling that data down was based on 2000 census data. The new method is based on 2005-2009 ACS data. The reason those two data sets are used (most likely) is because those two data sets are the only recent ones to offer tract and/or block group level data, which is what you'd need in order to reconstruct an estimate of ward-level unemployment from the DC-level BLS data.

The individual surveys that collect unemployment data month to month do not offer data for geographies as small as wards because the sample size is way too small. They've never offered ward-level data, it has always been an estimate - an estimate based on historical data from the Census. All this DCFPI piece (written by a guy from Brookings, by the way) does is note that the method and the data used to scale down and dis-aggregate the DC unemployment rate has changed.

Bottom line - those numbers are all fuzzy.

by Alex B. on Apr 5, 2011 11:37 am  

The passage you bolded is confusing because it seems like they are using the same "ratio" methodology (whatever that is) with the 5-year ACS that they used with the Census 2000. Unfortunately, the Census 2000 has no employment data whatsoever so it is unclear how they would incorporate the new availability of unemployment data when they were not using it before.

Also, I disagree that using the 2005-2009 estimate would be more accurate. It would be a more precise estimate because the larger sample size would reduce the standard error, but it would not be a more accurate estimate because the estimate in question (Jan 2011 unemployment, remember) would be convoluted by unemployment characteristics from previous years when there were different economic circumstances. One would expect the estimated unemployment rate to be biased downwards in that case, since 2005-2009 were years of relative economic prosperity (compared to now).

by gogurt on Apr 5, 2011 11:39 am  

@Alex B.: I see your point, and was briefly considering that all the researcher was doing was backing out the ward-level unemployment rate using only the district-wide unemployment rate and ward-level demographic characteristics. My understanding of that method is that he just switched from using Census 2000 to using the 2005-2009 ACS as the source of demographic data only.

This is certainly possible given the constraints of survey data, but if it is then I would be very cautious about drawing any conclusions based on the results.

I also think your reminder that it is just an estimate is important. However, I think it is even more important to remember that almost all numbers like this are estimates--it's just a matter of how precise and accurate they are.

by gogurt on Apr 5, 2011 11:55 am  

@gogurt:
Unfortunately, the Census 2000 has no employment data whatsoever so it is unclear how they would incorporate the new availability of unemployment data when they were not using it before.

This is wrong - it's in Summary File 3.

by MLD on Apr 5, 2011 12:03 pm  

@Alex B. Your comments give credence to the wide-spread belief that many GGWers are all about 'overbuilding' and not real 'smart' growth as they like to present themselves. Hence why we see them being co-opted by the developers and their interests. And there's nothing wrong with having a viewpoint that you're all about building up DC to the levels of Manhattan's density ... just don't pretend it's 'smart' growth. There's nothing smart about creating a city that's lost touch with the human element. And, besides, it's counter to the L'Enfant and MacMillan plans which view public spaces are important centers of an important city.

And the BS about "despite the cool events that the parking lot hosted, it was still a regular old parking lot 95% of the time." shows another failing common among the GGW so-called 'smart' growth proponents, the inability to distinguish between what can be and what is. Did I mention the parking activities in the space as something to be encouraged and continued? Of course not.

by Lance on Apr 5, 2011 12:03 pm  

@MLD: Thank you for your correction. My bad. I've never treated the Census as anything but a tool for population estimates (you will never find a researcher that prefers the Census to the CPS for labor force estimates--the CPS is specifically designed for that purpose whereas the Census is designed for population count) so I overlooked the supplementary statistics.

But I think the point that Alex B. makes still stands: the microdata is not available at the ward-level, so it remains unclear how employment numbers from either survey were employed in conjunction with the district-wide unemployment estimate.

by gogurt on Apr 5, 2011 12:11 pm  

hmmm ... okay, now I can see why you'd be so worried about the notion of keeping public space public:

your employers:

www.downtowndc.org/about/who-we-are/board

by Lance on Apr 5, 2011 12:26 pm  

Lance -- FWIW, I always suggested that the Convention Center site be replaced with something along the lines of Millennium Park in Chicago. But a project of that nature was outside of the imagination of Andy Altman and even Mayor Williams.

- http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2005/06/old-convention-center-site-chicago.html

I was always derisive of the language used to describe this project, but I can't seem to find my photo of the old billboard with a quote from Mayor Williams.

I happened to be talking a few weeks ago to an ex-top official of NCPC and we lamented that such a way forward was never taken, that Freedom Plaza is a joke and not really fixable, and will never be a central plaza for the city, and that DC doesn't and won't have a space on the scale of Millennium Park.

WRT the gentrification article, David calls it new but the article is 3 years old. I think oboe accurately renders the fundamentals of the issue--people don't like having to deal with new people, especially if they have more money and education... which by the way, I've been making this point for about 7 years wrt DC.

This blog entry:

http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2007/10/more-about-contested-spaces-and.html

started as writing on the old public spaces e-list in 2003/2004.

by Richard Layman on Apr 5, 2011 12:27 pm  

@gogurt

You are misinterpreting what Alex B is saying. The data for employment status in the ACS and Census 2000 is available at the census tract/block group level and therefore can be summed into the ward level.

He's saying the BLS unemployment data is not available at the ward level (it's only available for all of DC) so in order to get a ward by ward estimate they have to use census data as a piece of the analysis. All this article does is compare this methodology using Census 2000 data (current method) to using 2005-2009 ACS data (newer data). ACS data will be the only way to do this going forward as the census long form no longer exists.

by MLD on Apr 5, 2011 12:34 pm  

On the topic of bikes, there is an interesting bicycle documentary playing tonight. http://www.imaginemetro.com/?p=139

by Kevin on Apr 5, 2011 12:38 pm  

@Richard, I remember running the idea by one of CM Evan's people shortly after the space first started getting used for public events. They said it was a non-starter because there were just too much money involved in that profitable piece of land ... and that the issue would be a non-starter with Evans and not worth mentioning to him.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who can see that its highest and best use as is obviously as the center city square we're missing given that their is a 'local interest' now in this city as well as a 'federal interest.'

But I'm not surprised the GGW folks wouldn't pick up on this. Many aren't there yet to where they can understand that we need 'to build this city' but it can't all be bars and bike-lanes and stacked residences in suburban-style buildings we're building.

by Lance on Apr 5, 2011 12:39 pm  

@MLD:

Actually, I think you are the one misinterpreting what Alex B. is saying (perhaps Alex B. himself can clear this up).

I quote from Alex B.: "The individual surveys that collect unemployment data month to month do not offer data for geographies as small as wards because the sample size is way too small. They've never offered ward-level data, it has always been an estimate - an estimate based on historical data from the Census."

The reason why they don't offer data at that level is because of concerns for privacy--at that small of a geographical unit, someone could theoretically take the various variables offered on the person record of the ACS and uniquely identify the individual in the community. This is why data in surveys such as the ACS or CPS don't even offer variables on the primary sampling unit or strata for variance estimation. Nowadays, you have to use replicate weights instead.

At any rate, what you are saying is a little cryptic. If the ACS did have employment status data down to the ward-level, then why not just estimate the unemployment rate from that directly? Using the method you outline (take district-wide BLS data, then back out the ward-level data using demographics) is far more tenuous than direct estimation from the ACS (if it were possible), and has the added disadvantage of leaving no way for researchers to estimate variance. The whole point of complex survey design in the ACS, CPS, or any other Census product is to allow researchers to make point estimates and then, perhaps more importantly, to supply weights from which researchers can reliably establish the uncertainty of those point estimates.

This argument is getting a little pointless anyway. The bottom line remains, as Alex said, that these estimates are very rough.

by gogurt on Apr 5, 2011 12:49 pm  

The plans for CityCenter look nice. But in the meantime, they've blocked off all of the sidewalks in that whole area, and haven't made any alternative provision for pedestrians (other than "use other side" signs).

I thought that was illegal now -- that they have to keep the sidewalks or some alternative open during construction. Am I wrong about that? Is there something we can do (other than avoiding walking in that area until the construction is complete)?

by Rob on Apr 5, 2011 12:56 pm  

@Rob,

The TCP was approved by DDOT. It's not illegal. Use the sidewalk across the street. Please stop being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

by Rayful Edmond on Apr 5, 2011 1:01 pm  

@MLD and gogurt

You are both correct - the ACS and Census 2000 does have employment data, but it's not 'real time.' The real time data comes from the BLS and the Current Population Survey. That data only comes at the District-wide level, not at smaller geographies. Smaller geographies aren't available both because of sample size concerns and privacy concerns.

The larger point is that while we want to know what unemployment is like in a small area like a ward, the reality is that we don't know - we just have these best guesses.

by Alex B. on Apr 5, 2011 1:12 pm  

@GGW editors, re: crins 10:04am comment. please delete the last three words in parentheses.

by Tina on Apr 5, 2011 1:16 pm  

Alex, thanks!

After reading the article, it became clearer to me that most of us (for and against) gentrification have only a marginal understanding of what it is.

by HogWash on Apr 5, 2011 1:16 pm  

@Rayful: Rob asked a legitimate question. The first part of your response was useful, but the rest was gratuitously rude. Please stop being an a**hole just for the sake of being an a**hole.

by William on Apr 5, 2011 1:21 pm  

Lance wrote: I'm saddened to see greed taking this from us. Someone's going to make a lot of money from this ... and we, the citizens of this city, are going to be all the poorer for it.

Parks aren't an income-producing property. Do you really want DC to spend hundreds of thousands each year on maintaining a massive parcel of grass. Also, what's wrong with developers earning a living, while making the city better?

Take a trip over to Georgetown and jump off the Key Bridge.

by Why are you so difficult? on Apr 5, 2011 1:27 pm  

Richard,

I am going through the super long (!) post now. Do you think you need to update this part?

(3) increase in conversion of previously rented dwellings to owner-occupied, leading to a displacement of renters and an overall reduction of the number of rental units available in the neighborhood;

What I see happening now is some destruction of row houses in favor of condos (not even apartments). Is this a pattern of INCREASING single population and decreasing families?

Your third point is kind of the almost stereotypical definition. That sounds dismissing, and I don't mean it to be. Just don't have the time to refine what I mean!

Also, there's a lot of investor-driven activity - or do you think so?

As I say, I'm still reading it.

by Jazzy on Apr 5, 2011 1:50 pm  

This article makes white people out to be the devil.

Comments are more interesting than Lance, oboe and Dave Alpert combined.

http://clutchmagonline.com/lifeculture/feature/the-great-white-scare-coming-soon-to-a-city-near-you/

by Developer on Apr 5, 2011 3:18 pm  

crin: I agree with Bianchi that the last few words of your comment are offensive. I won't delete now because others have responded, but please do not use slurs of any type.

"Why are you so difficult?" (a question I would ask that commenter): Welcome to GGW. Our rules here are that it's great to disagree but you need to be civil toward others and confine your comments to the issues, not the people. Asking people to kill themselves, even if you don't really mean it, is not appropriate.

Rayful Edmond: We ask that people use a consistent handle when commenting so that people can understand which views are coming from the same person. You are the same person as "why are you so difficult?" and I would ask you to pick one handle to use consistently.

Also, this comment is likewise inappropriate. Rob was not being difficult "for the sake of being difficult," he was raising a valid point, which is that DC has a policy that construction projects should maintain a passage for pedestrians. If DDOT approved these plans without such it is not following the policy.

Richard Layman: You have so many great ideas but it would be more effective if you tried to convey them without being condescending toward others.

by David Alpert on Apr 5, 2011 3:19 pm  

David -- I didn't think I was being condescending. Sorry if it came off that way. It is a 3 year old article though...

Lance -- Jack Evans is the last person who'd be advocating for public space. The $30MM/year is a big deal. OTOH, the economic impact of Millennium Park is significant also, and if you believe this study:

http://www.americansforthearts.org/NAPD/files/11989/Millennium.pdf

it's as significant as the expected tax revenue from CityCenterDC.

Jazzy -- yes, I write too long. Interesting that you glom onto point 3. U R right that it's the classical definition. BUT it was "revelatory" to me in 2001-2004 so to speak because this type of displacement was absolutely minimal in the H Street neighborhood during that period. In fact, I added this point after conversation with Cody Rice--his ANC6A zoning committee had come across an apartment building conversion to condos.

Yes I know it sounds obvious, but in the early part of the last decade it wasn't happening very much at least in neighborhoods like mine, it hit gale force around 2004-5 (now most all of those buildings have been converted).

Mostly, in the H Street neighborhood at that time I saw vacant buildings being rehabilitated back to housing, and that in my mind wasn't gentrification. It was investment as opposed to disinvestment.

Not unlike how I was derisive about advocacy graffiti in the Station North neighborhood of Baltimore, about so called gentrification, in an area that is 25-50% vacant houses and/or vacant lots. It's not gentrification, is it, to rehabilitate an abandoned, vacant, disinvested property?

- http://www.flickr.com/photos/rllayman/4158078940/

Anyway, again getting back to the article, Lance Freeman found the effect that the Time article discussed. HOWEVER, Lees and Wyly wrote a paper in Shelterforce (mentioned back in the day in Frozen Tropics which is how I learned about it first) that seriously called into question some of his findings.

- http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/142/gentrification.html

What we'd need to do in DC is develop a kind of time frame and trajectory of waves of gentrification/displacement by neighborhood to get a better handle on what's happening.

What's happening isn't simple, because neighborhoods at the core are changing differently from neighborhoods on the periphery of the city, and neighborhoods with high quality transit locations in the right places are changing differently from neighborhoods without such transit.

A lot of what's happening now is a form of filtration of people with choice buying houses that are being sold off. Is adding new housing in the core of the city in W1, W2, and W6 gentrification? (Well, it is in W6 around the ballpark, where displacement was serious and direct, but e.g., building apartment buildings on the 400 and 500 blocks of Massachusetts Ave. NW didn't displace anybody, same with CityVista or the Yale Laundry complex.)

Etc.

by Richard Layman on Apr 5, 2011 4:35 pm  

Mendota, CA has an unemployment rate of around 45%.

Forty five percent.

I think they win the unemployment crown.

"Fresno County's unemployment rate in January was 18.2%. In Mendota, 44.9% of workers were jobless."

Read more: http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/03/16/2313078/stalemate-leaves-prison-jobs-hanging.html#ixzz1IgeNmFGp

by JJJJJ on Apr 5, 2011 5:34 pm