Put simply, what is the threshold for gentrification? Is it a ratio of relative terms, measuring the gap between new and existing income levels, or is there an absolute income level? Is it really more about demographics? Or education? And at what point is the word gentrification used with derision ?
The Hamptons Dictionary defines status quotient as complex, constantly variable equation performed on the fly to determine one’s standing in any given social situation by comparing the cost, brand, vintage and condition of other’s cars, clothing, jewelry, furnishings, housing, etc. with one’s own.
interesting question, i'd also like to see what the answers are going to be like. as there is the factor of being gentrified-out-of-a-richer-area, there is also the factor of being gentrified-into-a-poorer-area. so there probably is also a proportional relation between rent in an affluent area and rent in poorer area that dictates the outflow.
a linear progression of this would be worrisome though. If more and more areas are added to the gentrification pofrtolio, then there would be a decreasing number of areas accommodating the poorer folk. Does de-gentrification occur as readily as gentrification (to balance the rate of gentrification) or is gentrification generally self-maintaining and on the rise? Or do you need to have a steady decrease in rich people to nullify the encroachment of gentrification?
Or is not linear given the drive towards speculation? This did occur in Dubai. Rent increase drove many people out of some or many neighbourhoods prior to the crash. This encouraged investment in housing that was not sustainably justified by need. Came crash, the result was in the form of ghost neighbourhoods, new buildings and owners minus tenants. Rents plummeted down. People from neighbouring Abu Dhabi started renting in Dubai; including those with moderate means. In this case, gentrification ended up serving a totally different sector from the one previously envisaged.
As such, doesn't speculation abnegate a proportional maths? things looks skewed from that angle.
Threshold? Gentrification is probably a harder thing to label than some measurement of income race or class. All three are no longer as clearly defined as before. For example Young people who do not have to work and are supported by their parents (this may be a sub set of the Hipster Tribe) who live in a neighborhood have little income but live an upper class lifestyle. Or we have the Gays, always gentrification pioneers, and they are always moving due to their success at transforming their environment making it attractive to others and as a result diluting their communities and losing the initial economic advantages of their once low rent communities.
I think gentrification occurs and can be measured when the economic circumstances force a shift in the community from one race, class or age group to another by means of pricing people out. So what needs to be determined is what amount of a given community needs to be displaced from a physical space to constitute gentrification?
When a community, especial a vital culturally unique one is diluted or completely displace, think of artist colonies, gay neighborhoods, or other assimilable ethnic neighborhoods, people begin to think that this upheaval is a bad thing and then associate gentrification with destruction of something valuable yet intangible.
As for reverse gentrification, I thin the term is Urban Decay, I think gentrification is a linear thing and social and economic circumstances can force a shift from gentrification to urban decay sometime fairly quickly.
Gentrification, as locals experience it, occurs when the neighborhood no longer feels like it once did, or its history is beginning to be erased by an influx of wealthier people. When rent and house prices become high enough that the people who were in the community before gentrification can no longer afford it--to me, that's the threshold.
Cases to look at that may be less well-known and well-documented than others: Potrero Hill in San Francisco, CA, and West Oakland in Oakland, CA.
The reverse of gentrification, or "de-gentrification," is not "urban decay." If gentrification is higher income individuals moving into a lower income neighborhood, de-gentrification is lower income individuals moving into a higher income neighborhood. In Detroit, where I live, "de-gentrification" has taken place for decades. Urban decay is perhaps at times a by-product of lower income individuals moving into higher income neighborhoods, but is not endemic to the change. Take for instance, a neighborhood in Detroit like Indian Village that was once home to the auto barons of the early 20th century. Since then, the neighborhood has become far more middle class than it was 100 years ago with many of the mansions sub-divided into rental units. I wouldn't place a value judgment on the progression from high income to lower income as good, bad, "decayed," or otherwise. It is simply a result of evolving real estate market dynamics. I think the trap that we fall into with the gentrification discussion is when it becomes weighed down by our personal opinions of race, wealth, and class and a perception of place that does not involve change.
I think there is a difference between a group of people seeking employment opportunities and becoming a part of the city's ecology vs a group of people seeking to manipulate the city to serve their needs.
I don't think race and the like have as much to do with it as it does with the intentions behind one's move to a new area.
Lamenting that an area lost some grit or that it's simply populated by different ratios of ethnicities is reaching for the low hanging fruit.
Yet, I suppose that people can use the term gentrification to serve whatever agenda they may have.
Gentrification Threshold
The Hamptons Dictionary defines status quotient as complex, constantly variable equation performed on the fly to determine one’s standing in any given social situation by comparing the cost, brand, vintage and condition of other’s cars, clothing, jewelry, furnishings, housing, etc. with one’s own.
interesting question, i'd also like to see what the answers are going to be like. as there is the factor of being gentrified-out-of-a-richer-area, there is also the factor of being gentrified-into-a-poorer-area. so there probably is also a proportional relation between rent in an affluent area and rent in poorer area that dictates the outflow.
a linear progression of this would be worrisome though. If more and more areas are added to the gentrification pofrtolio, then there would be a decreasing number of areas accommodating the poorer folk. Does de-gentrification occur as readily as gentrification (to balance the rate of gentrification) or is gentrification generally self-maintaining and on the rise? Or do you need to have a steady decrease in rich people to nullify the encroachment of gentrification?
Or is not linear given the drive towards speculation? This did occur in Dubai. Rent increase drove many people out of some or many neighbourhoods prior to the crash. This encouraged investment in housing that was not sustainably justified by need. Came crash, the result was in the form of ghost neighbourhoods, new buildings and owners minus tenants. Rents plummeted down. People from neighbouring Abu Dhabi started renting in Dubai; including those with moderate means. In this case, gentrification ended up serving a totally different sector from the one previously envisaged.
As such, doesn't speculation abnegate a proportional maths? things looks skewed from that angle.
Threshold? Gentrification is probably a harder thing to label than some measurement of income race or class. All three are no longer as clearly defined as before. For example Young people who do not have to work and are supported by their parents (this may be a sub set of the Hipster Tribe) who live in a neighborhood have little income but live an upper class lifestyle. Or we have the Gays, always gentrification pioneers, and they are always moving due to their success at transforming their environment making it attractive to others and as a result diluting their communities and losing the initial economic advantages of their once low rent communities.
I think gentrification occurs and can be measured when the economic circumstances force a shift in the community from one race, class or age group to another by means of pricing people out. So what needs to be determined is what amount of a given community needs to be displaced from a physical space to constitute gentrification?
When a community, especial a vital culturally unique one is diluted or completely displace, think of artist colonies, gay neighborhoods, or other assimilable ethnic neighborhoods, people begin to think that this upheaval is a bad thing and then associate gentrification with destruction of something valuable yet intangible.
As for reverse gentrification, I thin the term is Urban Decay, I think gentrification is a linear thing and social and economic circumstances can force a shift from gentrification to urban decay sometime fairly quickly.
Gentrification, as locals experience it, occurs when the neighborhood no longer feels like it once did, or its history is beginning to be erased by an influx of wealthier people. When rent and house prices become high enough that the people who were in the community before gentrification can no longer afford it--to me, that's the threshold.
Cases to look at that may be less well-known and well-documented than others: Potrero Hill in San Francisco, CA, and West Oakland in Oakland, CA.
An interesting article
http://www.wbez.org/blogs/britt-julious/2013-10/logan-square-pilsen-and-avondale-gentrification-always-bad-thing-108874
The reverse of gentrification, or "de-gentrification," is not "urban decay." If gentrification is higher income individuals moving into a lower income neighborhood, de-gentrification is lower income individuals moving into a higher income neighborhood. In Detroit, where I live, "de-gentrification" has taken place for decades. Urban decay is perhaps at times a by-product of lower income individuals moving into higher income neighborhoods, but is not endemic to the change. Take for instance, a neighborhood in Detroit like Indian Village that was once home to the auto barons of the early 20th century. Since then, the neighborhood has become far more middle class than it was 100 years ago with many of the mansions sub-divided into rental units. I wouldn't place a value judgment on the progression from high income to lower income as good, bad, "decayed," or otherwise. It is simply a result of evolving real estate market dynamics. I think the trap that we fall into with the gentrification discussion is when it becomes weighed down by our personal opinions of race, wealth, and class and a perception of place that does not involve change.
I think there is a difference between a group of people seeking employment opportunities and becoming a part of the city's ecology vs a group of people seeking to manipulate the city to serve their needs.
I don't think race and the like have as much to do with it as it does with the intentions behind one's move to a new area.
Lamenting that an area lost some grit or that it's simply populated by different ratios of ethnicities is reaching for the low hanging fruit.
Yet, I suppose that people can use the term gentrification to serve whatever agenda they may have.
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.