Educate me - why is gentrification bad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification is bad because people need a place to live. Period. This prices them out of housing. Sure you can stay if you own your home as I do but taxes increase with the inflated home values and when I sell I still need somewhere to live. Yeah. I know. I can move way out or to another region which is fantastic except as an older person, I'd appreciate being near decent medical care and not have to drive far for everything.

And if you rent, you're pushed out with the quickness. Great for you with the high incomes but many hard working people don't have them.

That is oversimplified nonsense. It prices people out of housing in a particular neighborhood, or it prices them out of a particular house/apartment. In 1994, I wanted to rent in Georgetown, but couldn't afford it, so I rented in Clarendon instead. In 2004, we wanted to buy in Dupont Circle, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Columbia Heights instead. In 2015, we wanted to buy in Spring Valley, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Bethesda instead.

Is it a bummer? Sure. Is it a reason to put significant controls and protections into the real estate market? Absolutely not.

The real estate market is already significantly controlled and protected. I can't put up tower blocks next to your SFH, for example. The question is who do the controls and protections work for. And it's not the poor or working class of this area.

This statement is such a nothingburger. Who should they work for? Shouldn't they work for everyone? My SFH and poor and working class, with compromise? Isn't that called... society? Some kind of ... balance? Of course right now, that tower block "works for" developers, GGW, and the Mayor $$$$.

Such a nothingburger.

NIMBYs refusing to allow anything other than SFH, while fighting tooth and nail against transit projects like the Purple Line and housing development like McMillian Park isn't "compromise," it's reinforcing the status quo that directly benefits them to the detriment of others. We live in a society, yes. But we also live in a city, not anyone's personal fiefdom that they get to preserve in amber.

Isnt the whole idea of preserving green space or historical zoning a kind of preserving in amber? Yes, part of urban planning does involve preserving in amber. Btw, who doesnt like amber? Its captivating.

Yes, and that's why those are bad policies when overapplied. Historic townhouses in colonial cities may merit historic preservation but your midcentury s***shack does not. Nothing lives in amber.

[Anonymous]

Are you kidding? Everyone in DC loves gentrification. Except no one calls it gentrification anymore, Boomer. Now we call it "increasing density."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you kidding? Everyone in DC loves gentrification. Except no one calls it gentrification anymore, Boomer. Now we call it "increasing density."

I'm for increasing density in the neighborhood where I live, i.e., near Tenleytown. That's not gentrification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think the next neighborhood to gentrify will be, and what type of dwelling would you invest in? Wishing Id gotten in on the Wharf.

The Wharf and Navy Yard areas aren't really examples of gentrification. Those areas weren't residential before they were redeveloped.

There were a lot of old elegant and down at the heels apt buildings a few blocks back that Im guessing have risen in value. That sort of thing

That's probably true. I'm just saying that the Wharf and Navy Yard are examples of re-development of mostly industrial and underused areas. No one really has complaints about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think the next neighborhood to gentrify will be, and what type of dwelling would you invest in? Wishing Id gotten in on the Wharf.

The Wharf and Navy Yard areas aren't really examples of gentrification. Those areas weren't residential before they were redeveloped.

There were a lot of old elegant and down at the heels apt buildings a few blocks back that Im guessing have risen in value. That sort of thing

That's probably true. I'm just saying that the Wharf and Navy Yard are examples of re-development of mostly industrial and underused areas. No one really has complaints about that.

It's a phenomenon known as "dumping growth". It's impossible to build anywhere really desirable because of insane NIMBYism, so the growth goes in out of the way industrial areas. Look at Alexandria City - huge towers going up in every square inch near Eisenhower Ave. metro stop and the rest of town is all forever low-rise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you kidding? Everyone in DC loves gentrification. Except no one calls it gentrification anymore, Boomer. Now we call it "increasing density."

I'm for increasing density in the neighborhood where I live, i.e., near Tenleytown. That's not gentrification.

I'm a YIMBY in general but the economics of it can get pretty complicated. Real estate prices tend to be set on a regional basis, so a new tower block in Tenleytown may have its primary effect on comparable units in say Tyson's. And similarly, if FFX and MoCo aren't also building, your new tower block may be a drop in the bucket as far as prices go. Worse, a new building may be a signal that a neighborhood has arrived at a new step of desirability, and drive *up* prices in the immediate area, at least in the short term. There are no easy answers, but we do need to build a lot more on a regional basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think the next neighborhood to gentrify will be, and what type of dwelling would you invest in? Wishing Id gotten in on the Wharf.

The Wharf and Navy Yard areas aren't really examples of gentrification. Those areas weren't residential before they were redeveloped.

There were a lot of old elegant and down at the heels apt buildings a few blocks back that Im guessing have risen in value. That sort of thing

That's probably true. I'm just saying that the Wharf and Navy Yard are examples of re-development of mostly industrial and underused areas. No one really has complaints about that.

It's a phenomenon known as "dumping growth". It's impossible to build anywhere really desirable because of insane NIMBYism, so the growth goes in out of the way industrial areas. Look at Alexandria City - huge towers going up in every square inch near Eisenhower Ave. metro stop and the rest of town is all forever low-rise.

I'm OK with this. Why can't there be a variety of house styles and neighborhoods? Doesn't DCs mayor live in a SFH? Apartments are nice too. Why SAME SAME? Can we have a varied landscape, or is only Gotham acceptable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think the next neighborhood to gentrify will be, and what type of dwelling would you invest in? Wishing Id gotten in on the Wharf.

The Wharf and Navy Yard areas aren't really examples of gentrification. Those areas weren't residential before they were redeveloped.

There were a lot of old elegant and down at the heels apt buildings a few blocks back that Im guessing have risen in value. That sort of thing

That's probably true. I'm just saying that the Wharf and Navy Yard are examples of re-development of mostly industrial and underused areas. No one really has complaints about that.

It's a phenomenon known as "dumping growth". It's impossible to build anywhere really desirable because of insane NIMBYism, so the growth goes in out of the way industrial areas. Look at Alexandria City - huge towers going up in every square inch near Eisenhower Ave. metro stop and the rest of town is all forever low-rise.

I'm OK with this. Why can't there be a variety of house styles and neighborhoods? Doesn't DCs mayor live in a SFH? Apartments are nice too. Why SAME SAME? Can we have a varied landscape, or is only Gotham acceptable?

Do you think Alexandria City has been smart about growth? By most accounts Arlington (Gotham Jr.) has been much more successful. And it still has some SFH zones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you kidding? Everyone in DC loves gentrification. Except no one calls it gentrification anymore, Boomer. Now we call it "increasing density."

I'm for increasing density in the neighborhood where I live, i.e., near Tenleytown. That's not gentrification.

Ok, Mr. Pedantry. In 99 percent of the city where "increasing density" is actually happening it is identical to gentrification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you kidding? Everyone in DC loves gentrification. Except no one calls it gentrification anymore, Boomer. Now we call it "increasing density."

I'm for increasing density in the neighborhood where I live, i.e., near Tenleytown. That's not gentrification.

Ok, Mr. Pedantry. In 99 percent of the city where "increasing density" is actually happening it is identical to gentrification.

Gentrification happens without densification, and densification happens without gentrification. What's your point, anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please pass the popcorn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you kidding? Everyone in DC loves gentrification. Except no one calls it gentrification anymore, Boomer. Now we call it "increasing density."

I'm for increasing density in the neighborhood where I live, i.e., near Tenleytown. That's not gentrification.

Ok, Mr. Pedantry. In 99 percent of the city where "increasing density" is actually happening it is identical to gentrification.

NP. Only if the density is white and requires a mass exodus of a minority disenfranchised group.

Xennial

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you kidding? Everyone in DC loves gentrification. Except no one calls it gentrification anymore, Boomer. Now we call it "increasing density."

I'm for increasing density in the neighborhood where I live, i.e., near Tenleytown. That's not gentrification.

Ok, Mr. Pedantry. In 99 percent of the city where "increasing density" is actually happening it is identical to gentrification.

Gentrification happens without densification, and densification happens without gentrification. What's your point, anyway?

+1

[Anonymous]

In the last few years the DC council has been able to spend money like a bunch of drunk sailors on every pet social program imaginable (all of which I'm for, btw). But where do you think all that fresh money came from?! That's the little inconvenient truth that those who like to crow about the evils of development always seem to forget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you kidding? Everyone in DC loves gentrification. Except no one calls it gentrification anymore, Boomer. Now we call it "increasing density."

I'm for increasing density in the neighborhood where I live, i.e., near Tenleytown. That's not gentrification.

I'm a YIMBY in general but the economics of it can get pretty complicated. Real estate prices tend to be set on a regional basis, so a new tower block in Tenleytown may have its primary effect on comparable units in say Tyson's. And similarly, if FFX and MoCo aren't also building, your new tower block may be a drop in the bucket as far as prices go. Worse, a new building may be a signal that a neighborhood has arrived at a new step of desirability, and drive *up* prices in the immediate area, at least in the short term. There are no easy answers, but we do need to build a lot more on a regional basis.

Sure, but the point is, building more density in a neighborhood that's already quite wealthy is not gentrification.