Comments on: DEBATE AT LOLITA BAR: “Is Gentrification Good?” (plus music of the 80s and Seaveys of 1631 A.D.)

by: Eric S Gregory

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:36:26 +0000

Apologies–trigger happy.

“girlfriends”

by: Eric S Gregory

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:35:49 +0000

You certainly have a lot of “girlfirends.”

by: Amelia Bedelia

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 01:23:57 +0000

I fear my grandchildren may very well only experience clean, wealthy, educated and safe neighborhoods through books as some sort of novelty, rather than being able to walk through the streets without risk of getting shot or mugged, and to see the people, feel the emotion, hear the music, and taste the food first-hand.

But lucky you, Cory — you’ve got your vibrant, diverse, edgy and “real” neighborhood to come home to. Why even give a thought to anyone wealthier? You’ve got heaven on Earth right there!

Provide any of these “poor” neighborhoods with the same services that wealthy ones have: police protection,

I couldn’t agree more. But then you get (some) residents complaining about the intrusive, bullying police presence. The police are damned if they do and damned if they don’t….

clean open space,

Actually, there’s a lot of open space — okay, some would call it a wasteland — in poor areas located outside of cities. It doesn’t seem to have much transformational power.

economic opportunity and credit,

Exactly how much have you doled out in high-risk loans lately? People don’t have an inalienable right to borrow stuff, though I’m definitely pulling for those who have demonstrated a good work ethic and an eagerness to move up in the world.

good schools,

See “School Vouchers” — which will help smart and ambitious kids move out of the more, er, behaviorally diverse schools that the government is now restricting them to.

Hope, and you will find vibrancy of wealth that is not dependent upon the median income of the indigenous residents, but upon their cultural values.

I’m going to let you in on something my mother once told me: *Misfortune doesn’t always elevate people.* All this Dickensian romanticising of the poor has its roots in the twin evils of wishful thinking and middle-class guilt. Some poor people are wondeful, honest folks with cultural values that I might care about. Others are not. (Same goes for wealthy people, whom you seem to hold categorically in contempt.) So while I wish people in poor neighborhoods no ill will — and in fact I sincerely hope the law abiding citizens among them will escape to far less “interesting” neighborhoods as soon as is humanly and financially possible — I’m content to live in my uniformly safe, uniformly educated, perhaps “dull” little neck of the woods.

by: Cory

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:03:27 +0000

The gentrifying force can not judge what is better or worse if objectivity is used in evaluating the outcome. These neighborhoods are homogenously “poorer” before gentrification if one chooses to define the term “wealth” in monetary terms, rather than cultural terms. That distinction is important, and the result is unfortunate.
Gentrification’s force does not come from guns. It comes from the presumption that those with monetary wealth somehow “know” what’s better for a neighborhood, rather than the indigenous residents feeling safe and empowered to shape their own environment, no matter what their income level. Provide any of these “poor” neighborhoods with the same services that wealthy ones have: police protection, clean open space, economic opportunity and credit, good schools, Hope, and you will find vibrancy of wealth that is not dependent upon the median income of the indigenous residents, but upon their cultural values. But those services only come to those places with high tax bases, discounting the value of the cultures that lie suppressed within a “poor” neighborhood. The wealthy have chosen money as the battle weapon crafted to their own ways, leaving those without, without a voice because there is no monetary wealth behind their wants and needs. I fear our grandchildren may very well only experience these interesting and culturally diverse neighborhoods through books as some sort of novelty, rather than being able to walk the streets and see the people, feel the emotion, hear the music, and taste the food first-hand.

by: Amelia Bedelia

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 03:17:27 +0000

I feel gentrification only serves to strip neighborhoods of their identities and homogenize the populace by income, disregarding the culture.

Were they not homogenously *poorer* before?

Is there something cultureless about middle-class or wealthy people?

by: Cory Neale

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:20:43 +0000

As a resident of Philadelphia, I have to fight the forces of gentrification here. Known as “The Sixth Borough” in some circles, Philadelphia properties are advertised in NY as a viable alternative to NY living costs. Having lived here all my life, and seeing the cycling of flight/reinvestment here, I feel gentrification only serves to strip neighborhoods of their identities and homogenize the populace by income, disregarding the culture. To me, some of the greatest places in Philadelphia, and New York City Metro area as well, are not great because they are “rich”. They are great because of the identity established by residents and businesses, the stronghold ones that give character. That’s what bring value to a city, not property values.

by: Amelia Bedelia

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:56:15 +0000

My understanding of gentrification is that it doesn’t involve the use of force. It’s not a coup; just owners fixing things up and marketing properties to higher-income renters and buyers.

If poor people owned their own homes, they’d love gentrification and the rising property values it brings. (But then they wouldn’t be poor, would they? Erk.)

by: Jason Bontrager

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:52:00 +0000

Well if gentrification is bad, then what about the poor peoples who were invaded by the people that our ancestors invaded over? You’d have to go back through several waves of invasion to find the first wave of human settlers in the Americas, and I suspect that they don’t have a lot of descendents wandering around anymore.

by: Christopher

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:34:34 +0000

Sorry, I wrote “William L. Widmer” when I indeed meant “Edward L. Widmer” (aka Lord Rockingham).

by: Todd Seavey

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:45:59 +0000

And do you know whether “your” Widmers are related to Upper Crust/John Carter Brown Library’s Edward (”Ted”/”Lord Rockingham”) Widmer? It would be most distressing for Lord Rockingham’s lineage to be in doubt.