After decades of blight and unfulfilled promises that give Detroit its distinctive cynical outlook and fuel its creative output, the industrial capitol of North America is starting to attract newcomers. Fueled in part by a surge of redevelopment, Michigan governor Granholm's "cool cities initiative" to attract the "creative class", and the city's unique authenticity, young professionals are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for new lofts where few would dare to tread only a couple years ago. There goes the neighborhood...
Not that I'm complaining about people investing in the city, but when the Hard Rock Cafe opened, there was a collective sensation of nausea. I wouldn't expect to see a Gap on every corner any time soon though.
What is this whole creative Detroit idea? I mean duh, artists and creative people help revitalize areas and they get pushed out when all the WASPs and Yuppies move in. If that isn’t exploitation I don’t know what is.
The worst thing I ever heard was a lecture at IIT. When members of SHoP said they loved generification. Of course you like it your WHITE and your architects. At that moment I totally understood why in subversive Situationists movies they want to kill architects.
Gentrification is only a bad thing when the individuals who have to live in the area before investment happens aren't home or business owners that have a stake in the improving community. The real tragedy here isn't the Starbucks that moved in next door, its that poor urban areas have the smallest percentage of home owners of any in the United States, and the people who will profit from the re-renaissance of Detroit are absentee landlords and REITs.
Has the homestead movement north of Jefferson gained any traction?
That's the pattern. In Detroit gentrification has taken over 30 years. In Brooklyn it takes about 30 months. When we lived there we seriously had to move to a new neighborhood about every two years to keep ahead of rent hikes.
Another interesting thing about the "cool cities initiative" is actively trying to attract gay residents - because they all have tons of money and superb taste, right? I'll see if I can dig up an article on that.
I would say Gentrification is almost always a bad thing because typically the "new" residents which move in to a gentrified area leave with in two years of their arrival. It’s a blasted real estate pyramid scheme which destroys neighborhoods. Read Division Street America by Studs Terkel and drive down Division St. Wicker Park Chicago now. Its horrific what has happened!
Affordable Housing and rent control should go hand in hand with Gentrification. I think then you might have something. Look at whats happening to Cabrini Green - the "new" residents want the old residents out because they effect the resale value. Its disgusting. Greed isn't good!
Neighborhoods change. Its life. Gentrification or disinvestment happens in one degree or another to everyone. To my mind, controlling the pace of that change should be a matter of public policy, not an expectation of developers. If cities want to maintain their current character and residential population mixture, they should take steps to control growth. All too often they dont, or they encourage the growth, and are therefore seen by residents as acting in the interest of money instead of citizens. Which is probably a valid complaint. But my point is that we shouldnt blame developers for gentrification we dont like - their job is to make money, not protect your lifestyle. Take your complaint to city government and the planning department.
Jennifer Graholm is the most exciting thing in Michigan politics in decades - so as a Michigan native Im totally behind her policies in favor of cities and against sprawl (she is also trying to change the DoTs road standards to favor pedestrians - big, big news - only two or three states have done this). However, the "cool cities" approach to economic investment is not well founded yet. See the criticisms of Joel Kotkin, for example, and Richard Florida's response
No complaint about Jen - she's been great (John Engler was in office when we moved to New York... huge improvement to come back to!) I'm excited about the greenbelt scheme around Ann Arbor. A critical step, given the pace of sprwal in southeast Michigan. The volume of roadkill near my office is sickening. "Cool cities" is certainly a somewhat vague and funny (albeit well intended) notion though.
If developpers are part of a community they should be socially responsible for their actions. This whole idea that capitial and public policy are separate is hog wash! If you take from the pot you got to put something back. The problem is our whole concept of responsiblity in this country.
John, your point is well taken, but its rather theoretical in my mind. Are you going complain to some national REIT that one of their 100s of investments is not responsible to your neighborhood? What the hell do they care? Planning departments and City Councils ultimately approve these projects, and it is their development standards and policies that allow or restrict development. So the most immediate course of action towards controlling growth is at the local political level. City Councils represent you as a citizen, and are accountable to you; developers represent their pocket book and and are not accountable to neighbors (regardless of whether they theoretically should be, or in fact are out of enlightened selfinterest).
My point is that city government that has the primary responsibilty for controlling growth, and berating developers for gentrification is sort of like attacking the effect rather than the cause.
Well that might be true - but in this cause I still say shoot the messanger! It seems to me that developers and city councils have a tight relationship sort of like congress and lobbists. This is just another reason to separation between business and government.
I'm not really sure that williamsburg "gentrified" in 30 months. It's been my experience that neighborhoods gentrification rate is more exponential, with years of extremely little, but necessary, change that leads to a sharp rate of change.
if this assumption is right, then detroit has been gentrifying slowly for a while, and is now approaching the point where the curve takes off and explodes with development. the thirty months, so to speak.
the combination an incredible tapistry of old school urban buildings, new interest with development in the region, opportunity for growth, with a seriously up and coming architecture school at UMich, if architecture is the only thing you're concerned about, it's completely the place to be.
It seems to me that developers and city councils have a tight relationship sort of like congress and lobbists.
Exactly. There are lots of reasons for this. One, which is what Im suggesting, is that its because citizens dont actually participate in the democratic debate, because they hold developers to blame for gentrification instead of their councils. Of course, you need money to get access, and all that, but Im not interested in running down that debate just yet. The other reason this happens is because development projects fuel city budgets. Out here is California, municipal government is addicted to sales tax (thanks to Prop 13). So you see lots of big box and automarts getting approved. Cities want/need the taxes those high volume businesses generate to pay for pretty mundane things like roads, sewers, police, fire, parks... Older suburbs are especially suspectible to this phenomenon. As far as I can tell, the situtation is not that different in other states, just not as extreme.
Radical theory is fine, but its not necessarily an effective way of generating immediate change. So, to paraphrase another saying, "Think radically, act pragmatically."
Exactly, thats the impression I got from SHoP at the beginning of this posting malstrom on this topic. gentrification = $ for architects. pay off your student loans by destroying neighborhoods.
To give SHoP the benefit of the doubt I know that its bit different in NYC because of rent control but like the estate tax "they" are trying to rid NYC of rent control.
True - but pragmatics usually means back to status quo. Hum dee dum back to suburbizing the city and using NYC Adolf Giuliani police methods to ward off those evil urban dwellers. Bad Bad! And export this whole model to Iraq.
This whole thing from top to bottom stinks of white american excepitionalism. You know just because GI Joe beat Cobra doesn't mean were special or right - because GI Joe is also responsible for war crimes you just don't hear about those in history class.
Gentrification is nasty but a city in stasis is even worse. Im in Stockholm at the moment, dreadful. A city that doesn't change is dead.
As an architect one should be concious that you new building might attract hordes of people like yourself to an area. Uglyness* can be a defense mechanism.
Yes, as architects, I think we have a very problematic position within this debate. In part, its because our default operating mode is to make new buildings. And we are typically in the employ of developers and those with political and economic means, so we are generally on the gentrification side of the equation.
On reason I believe city government should be held accountable for the pace and character of growth is so that we (architects+developers) do not get demonized for going about the business of making a living. If the rules that enable/allow development dont reflect the community's values, then the problem is with the rules, not necessarily the people playing by the rules. So my suggestion to act pragmatically is not an endorsement of conventional development norms - its about where to apply political and economic action. Staging a crazy protest against gentrification may raise awareness of the issue, but if the community involved doesnt organize to change the existing planning approval process, then the protest isnt going to effect much change.
Anyways, Im going to have to sign off from this discussion, since I need to pull together a lecture on precisely this issue as it is playing out in Pasadena.
Good Luck Alan. Good discussion. Personally I like doing these things in person because my ranting is slower than my Mind and I type slower then I rant. So in the end I can't keep up with myself.
Webb is totally right about the rate of gentrification. We moved into into Park Slope Brooklyn as things were slowly trasitioning. Less than a year later the market went nuts and soon after our rent spiked from $1600 to $2200. Unwilling to pay it, and sick of tripping over all the strollers now jamming the sidewalks, we packed up and moved to Red Hook. Again, an eclectic mix of low income families and artists with a sprinkling of professionals. Within a couple years the retail scene did a 180 - French restaurants where bodegas were only months earlier, etc. In both cases though, the neighborhoods were probably on the brink of change for a good long time. It's difficult to predict just when it will hit.
Growing up in the Detroit area, it seemed downtown redevelopment was in the news my whole life, but nothing ever happened. Ever. When the first "luxury lofts" went in around '97, I couldn't believe they were going for $150K for puny 900 sq. ft. spaces. Those same lofts are now fetching over $350K. Really, in the past 20 months the city has transformed faster than it did in the previous 20 years. It's pretty fascinating to see. I'm very happy there is a lot of renovation and restoration, as Detroit is infamous for demolition of its past and putting up cheap suburban style structures.
being from detroit myself i couldn't agree more with m doyle. i have been hearing news my entire life too, it finally is begining to happen....what i'm not sure yet, but something
always wanted to move to detroit- coming from baltimore thought it would resemble it a little - also seduced by pictures of decadent old theaters used as parking garages and a sort of post-industrial-desolation-chic.....
hope things don't blow out of proportion before i get there.
interesting discussion...Maybe that's why I'm starting to appreciate all the sprawl in my city. Nobody is redeveloping here because they think the downtown is too scary, too hard to park in, and there are no good malls etc... So they all keep spreading out and out. But it leaves me with the cheapest rent here. Maybe I'll keep promoting the suburbs and I won't even have to pay rent soon!
can architecture solve social problems?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Probably not, but having a social responsible mind can. Not letting the bottom line affect your decisions. Remembering what you do affects others and living in an urban environment is a constant negotiation of conflict - but its how we chose to resolve them which makes us human and keeps our community enacted. In the end something has to solve social problems, however, everyone seems to want to pass the buck – so if not “them†than why not us?
what i really like about detroit is that it was almost completely unaffected by the glass box building boom of the eighties....the place really is a time capsule....i just took a job downtown, and was quite surprised to find that many of the original brick roads still have streetcar tracks in them
yeah bossman,
there wasn't much building going on in 1980's D-town. I saw a listing of the number of building permits issued the city issued by the year (from Jason Young's "Stalking Detroit" I believe) In 1985 there were ZERO building permits issued in the city of Detroit.
I’m just getting interested in urban planning and don’t know shit, so risking stupidity:
It’s about our models and mechanisms for processing redevelopment. To inject downtrodden Detroit with Starbucks The Gap, there’d certainly be a cost for the native low income residents, and a poor precedent set for solving blight. It’s important Planning Commissions get the neighborhood stakeholders involved in community workshops, where ideas and concerns can be voiced, local groups have their say and offer plans in partnership with city planning. You must let the local poor communities have a say in rezoning and design of their neighborhoods. And zone for the spectrum, which means a considerable infrastructure for permanent affordability. Do Gap and Starbucks bring that? If poor people are so hungry they say yes to Starbucks, is it our responsibility to say, that may not be the best thing for your neighborhood? Gentrification for long has bowed to the power of developers and speculative market. Market rate housing gets built in far excess to affordable stock, with generally less built for those in between, while perhaps city planning departments hide in the back pockets of local developers. It depends on how you define “gentrification†but it is defended by bulldozers, evictions, displacement, chain stores, the injection of market rate building. The community process is sacrificed for higher profits. Even though some neighborhoods are destitute, and you imply could use a Starbucks, is that really the right way to improve neighborhoods? Because they could simply use anything they can get? Are our Redevelopment Agencies giving these communities what they need? Schools, community centers, medical services, ability to foster local merchants, etc.? Planning Commissions have a tendency to overlook their real needs by thinking if we just stick a Home Depot there we’ll provide tons of jobs. But there’s so much more.
You say your neighborhood in NYC is gentrified but has not lost its character, I am sure many would argue that is debatable. What was its character 20 years ago, do you know? How do you support your claim that its “true character†has not been lost? What is the criterion we would use for determining that?
Personally I have many questions about the RDA, am skeptical of the checks and balances that govern their practice, how they’re funded and use that money to improve neighborhoods. But I live in SF a highly contentious market place not to mention all the political debate surrounding every bit of building. We need to find better ways of practicing intense community-based planning to avoid the “gentrification†that typically dominates neighborhood transformation.
Gentrification is both good and bad, depending on if you're the professional moving into a edgy neighborhood who needs a mochachino fix, or if you're the poor family forced out by the skyrocketing real estate costs.
We used to say, "artists don't live in Manhattan anymore because they just can't afford it." Same goes for many parts of Brooklyn now, and that's an inevitibilty for downtown Detroit. Areas become cartoons of what originally made them attractive, but that's just the way gentrification works. There's a ripple effect in metro Detroit now, as money moves back into the city center, former 'new' areas, such as Southfield and Dearborn, get more depressed. What gentrification doesn't do is make poor people disappear - they're just forced to move.
Kerouac and his friends couldn't afford to live in the West Village today, and they wouldn't want to be around the tourist carnival that is Christopher St. - so, yes, its changed.
Newsflash: Detroit is "cool"
After decades of blight and unfulfilled promises that give Detroit its distinctive cynical outlook and fuel its creative output, the industrial capitol of North America is starting to attract newcomers. Fueled in part by a surge of redevelopment, Michigan governor Granholm's "cool cities initiative" to attract the "creative class", and the city's unique authenticity, young professionals are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for new lofts where few would dare to tread only a couple years ago. There goes the neighborhood...
Disneyfication of Detroit - say it anti so...
"The 34-year-old real-estate tax consultant and his wife are part of a small migration into a city"
Not that I'm complaining about people investing in the city, but when the Hard Rock Cafe opened, there was a collective sensation of nausea. I wouldn't expect to see a Gap on every corner any time soon though.
What is this whole creative Detroit idea? I mean duh, artists and creative people help revitalize areas and they get pushed out when all the WASPs and Yuppies move in. If that isn’t exploitation I don’t know what is.
The worst thing I ever heard was a lecture at IIT. When members of SHoP said they loved generification. Of course you like it your WHITE and your architects. At that moment I totally understood why in subversive Situationists movies they want to kill architects.
Gentrification is only a bad thing when the individuals who have to live in the area before investment happens aren't home or business owners that have a stake in the improving community. The real tragedy here isn't the Starbucks that moved in next door, its that poor urban areas have the smallest percentage of home owners of any in the United States, and the people who will profit from the re-renaissance of Detroit are absentee landlords and REITs.
Has the homestead movement north of Jefferson gained any traction?
That's the pattern. In Detroit gentrification has taken over 30 years. In Brooklyn it takes about 30 months. When we lived there we seriously had to move to a new neighborhood about every two years to keep ahead of rent hikes.
Another interesting thing about the "cool cities initiative" is actively trying to attract gay residents - because they all have tons of money and superb taste, right? I'll see if I can dig up an article on that.
Yeah like the The Farbman Group.
I would say Gentrification is almost always a bad thing because typically the "new" residents which move in to a gentrified area leave with in two years of their arrival. It’s a blasted real estate pyramid scheme which destroys neighborhoods. Read Division Street America by Studs Terkel and drive down Division St. Wicker Park Chicago now. Its horrific what has happened!
Affordable Housing and rent control should go hand in hand with Gentrification. I think then you might have something. Look at whats happening to Cabrini Green - the "new" residents want the old residents out because they effect the resale value. Its disgusting. Greed isn't good!
Neighborhoods change. Its life. Gentrification or disinvestment happens in one degree or another to everyone. To my mind, controlling the pace of that change should be a matter of public policy, not an expectation of developers. If cities want to maintain their current character and residential population mixture, they should take steps to control growth. All too often they dont, or they encourage the growth, and are therefore seen by residents as acting in the interest of money instead of citizens. Which is probably a valid complaint. But my point is that we shouldnt blame developers for gentrification we dont like - their job is to make money, not protect your lifestyle. Take your complaint to city government and the planning department.
Jennifer Graholm is the most exciting thing in Michigan politics in decades - so as a Michigan native Im totally behind her policies in favor of cities and against sprawl (she is also trying to change the DoTs road standards to favor pedestrians - big, big news - only two or three states have done this). However, the "cool cities" approach to economic investment is not well founded yet. See the criticisms of Joel Kotkin, for example, and Richard Florida's response
No complaint about Jen - she's been great (John Engler was in office when we moved to New York... huge improvement to come back to!) I'm excited about the greenbelt scheme around Ann Arbor. A critical step, given the pace of sprwal in southeast Michigan. The volume of roadkill near my office is sickening. "Cool cities" is certainly a somewhat vague and funny (albeit well intended) notion though.
green belt around A2? Boulder = Ann Arbor ? Man I've been out of Michigan too long.
Wait there is more on Cool Cities
oh and by the way go pistons
If developpers are part of a community they should be socially responsible for their actions. This whole idea that capitial and public policy are separate is hog wash! If you take from the pot you got to put something back. The problem is our whole concept of responsiblity in this country.
Here's some info on the Ann Arbor greenbelt:
Free Press
Detroit News
A2 Openspace.org
A2 IMC
I meant accountable for their actions in the above entry.
John, your point is well taken, but its rather theoretical in my mind. Are you going complain to some national REIT that one of their 100s of investments is not responsible to your neighborhood? What the hell do they care? Planning departments and City Councils ultimately approve these projects, and it is their development standards and policies that allow or restrict development. So the most immediate course of action towards controlling growth is at the local political level. City Councils represent you as a citizen, and are accountable to you; developers represent their pocket book and and are not accountable to neighbors (regardless of whether they theoretically should be, or in fact are out of enlightened selfinterest).
My point is that city government that has the primary responsibilty for controlling growth, and berating developers for gentrification is sort of like attacking the effect rather than the cause.
Well that might be true - but in this cause I still say shoot the messanger! It seems to me that developers and city councils have a tight relationship sort of like congress and lobbists. This is just another reason to separation between business and government.
and on to the discussion.
I shot the developer but I did not shot the city council member...
oh good. I thought you intended to shoot me as the messanger...
Oh and by the way what we need are more radical theorical positions. I don't care if the Cold War is over - Theory can never die!
originally posted by webb:
to continue the comments...
I'm not really sure that williamsburg "gentrified" in 30 months. It's been my experience that neighborhoods gentrification rate is more exponential, with years of extremely little, but necessary, change that leads to a sharp rate of change.
if this assumption is right, then detroit has been gentrifying slowly for a while, and is now approaching the point where the curve takes off and explodes with development. the thirty months, so to speak.
the combination an incredible tapistry of old school urban buildings, new interest with development in the region, opportunity for growth, with a seriously up and coming architecture school at UMich, if architecture is the only thing you're concerned about, it's completely the place to be.
but then again, it's detroit.
Exactly. There are lots of reasons for this. One, which is what Im suggesting, is that its because citizens dont actually participate in the democratic debate, because they hold developers to blame for gentrification instead of their councils. Of course, you need money to get access, and all that, but Im not interested in running down that debate just yet. The other reason this happens is because development projects fuel city budgets. Out here is California, municipal government is addicted to sales tax (thanks to Prop 13). So you see lots of big box and automarts getting approved. Cities want/need the taxes those high volume businesses generate to pay for pretty mundane things like roads, sewers, police, fire, parks... Older suburbs are especially suspectible to this phenomenon. As far as I can tell, the situtation is not that different in other states, just not as extreme.
Radical theory is fine, but its not necessarily an effective way of generating immediate change. So, to paraphrase another saying, "Think radically, act pragmatically."
Exactly, thats the impression I got from SHoP at the beginning of this posting malstrom on this topic. gentrification = $ for architects. pay off your student loans by destroying neighborhoods.
To give SHoP the benefit of the doubt I know that its bit different in NYC because of rent control but like the estate tax "they" are trying to rid NYC of rent control.
True - but pragmatics usually means back to status quo. Hum dee dum back to suburbizing the city and using NYC Adolf Giuliani police methods to ward off those evil urban dwellers. Bad Bad! And export this whole model to Iraq.
Like this is America and we put a welcome mat in front of Abu Ghraib prison
That sounded better when I was thinking it, but I hope you understand what I mean!
This whole thing from top to bottom stinks of white american excepitionalism. You know just because GI Joe beat Cobra doesn't mean were special or right - because GI Joe is also responsible for war crimes you just don't hear about those in history class.
Okay I'm losing my focus.
Gentrification is nasty but a city in stasis is even worse. Im in Stockholm at the moment, dreadful. A city that doesn't change is dead.
As an architect one should be concious that you new building might attract hordes of people like yourself to an area. Uglyness* can be a defense mechanism.
*as defined by "good taste"
Yes, as architects, I think we have a very problematic position within this debate. In part, its because our default operating mode is to make new buildings. And we are typically in the employ of developers and those with political and economic means, so we are generally on the gentrification side of the equation.
On reason I believe city government should be held accountable for the pace and character of growth is so that we (architects+developers) do not get demonized for going about the business of making a living. If the rules that enable/allow development dont reflect the community's values, then the problem is with the rules, not necessarily the people playing by the rules. So my suggestion to act pragmatically is not an endorsement of conventional development norms - its about where to apply political and economic action. Staging a crazy protest against gentrification may raise awareness of the issue, but if the community involved doesnt organize to change the existing planning approval process, then the protest isnt going to effect much change.
Anyways, Im going to have to sign off from this discussion, since I need to pull together a lecture on precisely this issue as it is playing out in Pasadena.
Wow! you cant break for a coffee in the middle of a post in this Suddenly Im all out of context.
Good Luck Alan. Good discussion. Personally I like doing these things in person because my ranting is slower than my Mind and I type slower then I rant. So in the end I can't keep up with myself.
Best,
Webb is totally right about the rate of gentrification. We moved into into Park Slope Brooklyn as things were slowly trasitioning. Less than a year later the market went nuts and soon after our rent spiked from $1600 to $2200. Unwilling to pay it, and sick of tripping over all the strollers now jamming the sidewalks, we packed up and moved to Red Hook. Again, an eclectic mix of low income families and artists with a sprinkling of professionals. Within a couple years the retail scene did a 180 - French restaurants where bodegas were only months earlier, etc. In both cases though, the neighborhoods were probably on the brink of change for a good long time. It's difficult to predict just when it will hit.
Growing up in the Detroit area, it seemed downtown redevelopment was in the news my whole life, but nothing ever happened. Ever. When the first "luxury lofts" went in around '97, I couldn't believe they were going for $150K for puny 900 sq. ft. spaces. Those same lofts are now fetching over $350K. Really, in the past 20 months the city has transformed faster than it did in the previous 20 years. It's pretty fascinating to see. I'm very happy there is a lot of renovation and restoration, as Detroit is infamous for demolition of its past and putting up cheap suburban style structures.
If I were to spend $300k for a loft in the city, I sure the hell wouldnt want to live next to a crack house.
being from detroit myself i couldn't agree more with m doyle. i have been hearing news my entire life too, it finally is begining to happen....what i'm not sure yet, but something
always wanted to move to detroit- coming from baltimore thought it would resemble it a little - also seduced by pictures of decadent old theaters used as parking garages and a sort of post-industrial-desolation-chic.....
hope things don't blow out of proportion before i get there.
Did any other Detroit natives think the Simpsons 'monorail episode' hit a little close to the heart?
"What'd I say? Monorail!"
- Coleman A. Young, c. 1977
Especially with the voice of Phil Hartman. :(
oh, man, the monorail episode is my favorite.
it's all Jack White's fault. Thanks Jack...
interesting discussion...Maybe that's why I'm starting to appreciate all the sprawl in my city. Nobody is redeveloping here because they think the downtown is too scary, too hard to park in, and there are no good malls etc... So they all keep spreading out and out. But it leaves me with the cheapest rent here. Maybe I'll keep promoting the suburbs and I won't even have to pay rent soon!
can architecture solve social problems?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Probably not, but having a social responsible mind can. Not letting the bottom line affect your decisions. Remembering what you do affects others and living in an urban environment is a constant negotiation of conflict - but its how we chose to resolve them which makes us human and keeps our community enacted. In the end something has to solve social problems, however, everyone seems to want to pass the buck – so if not “them†than why not us?
they had a good techno scene a while back. . .
what i really like about detroit is that it was almost completely unaffected by the glass box building boom of the eighties....the place really is a time capsule....i just took a job downtown, and was quite surprised to find that many of the original brick roads still have streetcar tracks in them
yeah bossman,
there wasn't much building going on in 1980's D-town. I saw a listing of the number of building permits issued the city issued by the year (from Jason Young's "Stalking Detroit" I believe) In 1985 there were ZERO building permits issued in the city of Detroit.
I’m just getting interested in urban planning and don’t know shit, so risking stupidity:
It’s about our models and mechanisms for processing redevelopment. To inject downtrodden Detroit with Starbucks The Gap, there’d certainly be a cost for the native low income residents, and a poor precedent set for solving blight. It’s important Planning Commissions get the neighborhood stakeholders involved in community workshops, where ideas and concerns can be voiced, local groups have their say and offer plans in partnership with city planning. You must let the local poor communities have a say in rezoning and design of their neighborhoods. And zone for the spectrum, which means a considerable infrastructure for permanent affordability. Do Gap and Starbucks bring that? If poor people are so hungry they say yes to Starbucks, is it our responsibility to say, that may not be the best thing for your neighborhood? Gentrification for long has bowed to the power of developers and speculative market. Market rate housing gets built in far excess to affordable stock, with generally less built for those in between, while perhaps city planning departments hide in the back pockets of local developers. It depends on how you define “gentrification†but it is defended by bulldozers, evictions, displacement, chain stores, the injection of market rate building. The community process is sacrificed for higher profits. Even though some neighborhoods are destitute, and you imply could use a Starbucks, is that really the right way to improve neighborhoods? Because they could simply use anything they can get? Are our Redevelopment Agencies giving these communities what they need? Schools, community centers, medical services, ability to foster local merchants, etc.? Planning Commissions have a tendency to overlook their real needs by thinking if we just stick a Home Depot there we’ll provide tons of jobs. But there’s so much more.
You say your neighborhood in NYC is gentrified but has not lost its character, I am sure many would argue that is debatable. What was its character 20 years ago, do you know? How do you support your claim that its “true character†has not been lost? What is the criterion we would use for determining that?
Personally I have many questions about the RDA, am skeptical of the checks and balances that govern their practice, how they’re funded and use that money to improve neighborhoods. But I live in SF a highly contentious market place not to mention all the political debate surrounding every bit of building. We need to find better ways of practicing intense community-based planning to avoid the “gentrification†that typically dominates neighborhood transformation.
Forgive me though for all I still don’t know.
bfunk - I think you answered that perfectly.
Gentrification is both good and bad, depending on if you're the professional moving into a edgy neighborhood who needs a mochachino fix, or if you're the poor family forced out by the skyrocketing real estate costs.
We used to say, "artists don't live in Manhattan anymore because they just can't afford it." Same goes for many parts of Brooklyn now, and that's an inevitibilty for downtown Detroit. Areas become cartoons of what originally made them attractive, but that's just the way gentrification works. There's a ripple effect in metro Detroit now, as money moves back into the city center, former 'new' areas, such as Southfield and Dearborn, get more depressed. What gentrification doesn't do is make poor people disappear - they're just forced to move.
Kerouac and his friends couldn't afford to live in the West Village today, and they wouldn't want to be around the tourist carnival that is Christopher St. - so, yes, its changed.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.