I dislike people who decry gentrification. People who say this would never live in a place that wasn't at least partially gentrified. It is exactly the same as people who don't like it when their favorite indie band has gotten too famous. A friend was complaining about condos recently, and I have no sympathy. People complain about the lack of neighborhood, and I have no sympathy for that either, because these people walk around with their cellphones glued to their face. But even disregarding that, I don't see anything wrong with it. When I lived in Central Square (which was great because it was like this gentrification process that got stuck and you have homeless people hanging out harmlessly outside the Gap) there were "locals" who sat around on their stoop all day chatting with each other, whom I walked past when I left for class, and were still there five hours later when I got back, and if this was what the kids like to pretend is now missing in their gentrified neighborhoods, then they are crazy because all I could think was why can't they do something productive with their time.
But I was there!
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
I'm losing my edge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree with you in that most people who rail against gentrification probably wouldn't dream of owning property in an urban, ungentrified neighbhorhood (reference Anacostia in D.C.).
That said, there is a much uglier side to gentrification that I, for one, choose to attack: to make a community 'new' and 'livable,' one must remove those who live there currently. And people do live there. Where do they go? Where do we sweep them? We build a nice new set of condos, raise local rents, and all the undesirables have to leave. That, I have to say, is a rather cavalier way of endorsing the brushing aside of every population you don't want to live with or even near. If they can't afford your target lifestyle, you don't want them around. They lose their homes, get bought out and end up scraping by in someone else's neck of the woods. NIMBY for the poor and homeless. So before you dismiss gentrification haters, know that at least some of us hate it for practical, and far from trendy, reasons.
It is true. Those people have no say. (Which is why I've never heard them complain.)
But people up and down the economic ladder are always moving or being moved. The higher up you are, the more choice in the matter you have, and over time neighborhoods are obviously grouped by financially similar (and therefore often racially/culturally similar) demographics. The only way around this is through subsidized housing and that sort of thing (which is quite prevalent here in Seattle) and that works in part, but that's not really a solution. Is there one other than a dramatic shift (like to communism) in the system?
Besides: presumably, though perhaps untruthfully, the hard working are rewarded. They are striving for something, perhaps a better place to live. If you remove this goal, there'd be no incentive for them to be productive anymore. Granted, it sucks when people are forced to move, but there isn't room for everyone, so how do we sort out who lives where?
Anyway, I was just referring to the hypocritical complainers. I have no solution for the genuinely affected. Except perhaps we can turn all the neighborhoods in the early process of gentrification into casinos. Then everyone will be happy.
Using wealth and influence as a justification for gentrification sounds, how to I put it, rather Bushian. As I understand you, if a "hard working" and "productive" soul decides he wants to develop on a certain waterfront, for instance, he should feel justified in buying some property, tearing down or repairing whatever was there, and calling the plot his own. After all, he has the means to buy out the lesser tenants; why should it matter what happens to them? Just because there isn't room for everyone, and we might not know exactly where we all fit, I would hardly call the human right to self-interest the best solution.
Poor people lose because they can't outspend or outmanuever the rich. And rich people win because, well, they can. You're treatig neighborhoods like rocks in a field. Remove the undesirable stones, and you'll have a fine piece of land (never minding, of course, the future fortunes of whomever you've removed). Hmmm, I can't imagine you truly endorse that diseased rationale. Moreover, if free-market determinism indeed met the best interests of all involved, then you'd have a hard time explaining how gentrification helps those who get the gentri-boot.
I approve of your second notion. Casinos are wonderful community builders.
Post a Comment