Gentrification will save Baltimore City from itself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact of the matter is that gentrifying Baltimore will make the city much more competitive. Not trying to be racist, but the city decayed the minute it elected a black Mayor.

You can't gentrify out of the deep poverty and lack of lower skilled jobs in the city. Do you expect the population of the East and West side of. Baltimore to evaporate because you want to pretend they doing exist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in Baltimore gentrification could proceed without displacement, due to lots of vacant land and buildings.

But it seems that in recent years most gentrification has focused on formerly working class white areas such as Locust Point, Hampden, Brewers Hill, etc.

It seems to have stalled out in african american areas,like Hollins Market, near Charles Village, west of Patterson Park, etc.

Has Baltimore exhausted the supply of easily transformable areas? Is there sufficient demand to transform the harder areas?

You do realize that all that vacant land exists because (poor, black) people already were displaced.

If you define displacement as people leaving for any reason. I meant displacement by gentrification. The places with all the vacant land and houses have not experienced gentrification.

They (not all, but many) have experienced displacement due to a gentrification plan that failed. The area around the Hopkins Medical campus is a key example. People left because homes were taken by eminent domain: https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2013/02/19/book-on-hopkins-redevelopment-by-a-leader-of-the-opposition/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in Baltimore gentrification could proceed without displacement, due to lots of vacant land and buildings.

But it seems that in recent years most gentrification has focused on formerly working class white areas such as Locust Point, Hampden, Brewers Hill, etc.

It seems to have stalled out in african american areas,like Hollins Market, near Charles Village, west of Patterson Park, etc.

Has Baltimore exhausted the supply of easily transformable areas? Is there sufficient demand to transform the harder areas?

You do realize that all that vacant land exists because (poor, black) people already were displaced.

If you define displacement as people leaving for any reason. I meant displacement by gentrification. The places with all the vacant land and houses have not experienced gentrification.

They (not all, but many) have experienced displacement due to a gentrification plan that failed. The area around the Hopkins Medical campus is a key example. People left because homes were taken by eminent domain: https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2013/02/19/book-on-hopkins-redevelopment-by-a-leader-of-the-opposition/

That's a pretty small portion of all the vacant lots and houses in Baltimore though. Plus given that there is so much vacant land and housing in Baltimore, the people displaced from that neighborhood could have stayed in the City if they wanted. OP appears to think gentrification will push poor people of color out of the City, not just out of particular neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in Baltimore gentrification could proceed without displacement

Displacement is crucial for successful end-stage gentrification

The people willing to pay $400,000 for a painted lady (google it) with no parking or a 5,000 sq ft warehouse loft space don't want to live amongst the original population. They want to be surrounded by people like them, not by hoodrats.

This sounds like trolling to me. And of course the experience in DC, Alexandria, NYC, etc is quite different.

Just an owner of a company that's made a very good run of renovating homes in places where gentrification is occurring.

I've been able to see and study it up close since 1986, when we did our very first home remodel in a run down ghetto called "Logan Circle".

And if you knew the whole history of Georgetown, instead of just what you think you know, you'd realize how right I am.

Gentrification has stages. Georgetown represents the end-stage. U-street is advanced mid-stage. H-street NE is early mid-stage. Minnesota Ave NE and Alabama Ave SE is early-stage.

The gentrifiiers that can afford the mid-stages, can't afford the end stage. And they're being used, as a tool, by the people who CAN afford it, to push out anyone who used to live in that neighborhood, and make it suitable for them. It seems it takes about 15 years or so to make the transition from each stage, based on what I've seen.

So no one really cares that it "sounds like trolling" to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in Baltimore gentrification could proceed without displacement

Displacement is crucial for successful end-stage gentrification

The people willing to pay $400,000 for a painted lady (google it) with no parking or a 5,000 sq ft warehouse loft space don't want to live amongst the original population. They want to be surrounded by people like them, not by hoodrats.

This sounds like trolling to me. And of course the experience in DC, Alexandria, NYC, etc is quite different.

Just an owner of a company that's made a very good run of renovating homes in places where gentrification is occurring.

I've been able to see and study it up close since 1986, when we did our very first home remodel in a run down ghetto called "Logan Circle".

And if you knew the whole history of Georgetown, instead of just what you think you know, you'd realize how right I am.

Gentrification has stages. Georgetown represents the end-stage. U-street is advanced mid-stage. H-street NE is early mid-stage. Minnesota Ave NE and Alabama Ave SE is early-stage.

The gentrifiiers that can afford the mid-stages, can't afford the end stage. And they're being used, as a tool, by the people who CAN afford it, to push out anyone who used to live in that neighborhood, and make it suitable for them. It seems it takes about 15 years or so to make the transition from each stage, based on what I've seen.

So no one really cares that it "sounds like trolling" to you.

There are still low income people in Shaw, in Navy Yard (and more coming back) etc due to committed affordable housing units. Maybe you think that will not lead to "end stage"" gentrification, but I would suggest that if any particular Baltimore neighborhood gets to the point that Shaw or Columbia Heights or the part of the Hill near Potomac Gardens or SW waterfront are now, that would sufficient success. I note that there are many parts of Manhattan, including on the UWS that have proximity to large public housing projects. If those are not at "end stage" gentrification, I am not sure what the term means.

It sounds like trolling because you appear less concerned about the RE market in Baltimore in general, than about saying nasty things about poor POCs, and setting up a flame war between POCs and those who support gentrification - again, wrt a city where there is plenty of room for gentrification without displacement. (Also you appear to be conflating change at the neighborhood level with change at the city level).

Now realistically its hard for Baltimore to get a scenario like Shaw because of the lack of employment relative to DC or NYC. But A. that point could have been made without the inflammatory opening post B. It is mostly due to factors other than Baltimore's demographics. Being national capital or world financial capital is a big boon to a city, whatever its demographics are.

[Anonymous]

I can't speak for NY. I've never worked there. I can only speak for DC, where l was born. And I have a much keener sense of it's history and demographics than you likely do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't speak for NY. I've never worked there. I can only speak for DC, where l was born. And I have a much keener sense of it's history and demographics than you likely do.

So tell me, what impact has N Street Village had on Logan Circle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:in Baltimore gentrification could proceed without displacement

Displacement is crucial for successful end-stage gentrification

The people willing to pay $400,000 for a painted lady (google it) with no parking or a 5,000 sq ft warehouse loft space don't want to live amongst the original population. They want to be surrounded by people like them, not by hoodrats.

This sounds like trolling to me. And of course the experience in DC, Alexandria, NYC, etc is quite different.

Just an owner of a company that's made a very good run of renovating homes in places where gentrification is occurring.

I've been able to see and study it up close since 1986, when we did our very first home remodel in a run down ghetto called "Logan Circle".

And if you knew the whole history of Georgetown, instead of just what you think you know, you'd realize how right I am.

Gentrification has stages. Georgetown represents the end-stage. U-street is advanced mid-stage. H-street NE is early mid-stage. Minnesota Ave NE and Alabama Ave SE is early-stage.

The gentrifiiers that can afford the mid-stages, can't afford the end stage. And they're being used, as a tool, by the people who CAN afford it, to push out anyone who used to live in that neighborhood, and make it suitable for them. It seems it takes about 15 years or so to make the transition from each stage, based on what I've seen.

So no one really cares that it "sounds like trolling" to you.

Having lived in both cities, Baltimore is not at all like DC. Baltimore is not only hampered by its lack of jobs downtown but also by extremely high real estate taxes, a much higher crome

[Anonymous]

Hit submit too soon. Much higher crime rate, and failing school system, with only a handful of decent schools, geographically concentrated in the same long estblished Baltimore neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't speak for NY. I've never worked there. I can only speak for DC, where l was born. And I have a much keener sense of it's history and demographics than you likely do.

So tell me, what impact has N Street Village had on Logan Circle?

Mostly it helps with assuaging white guilt and letting them feel better about themselves, which was the goal.

What did Nietzsche say about altruism?


That it was all self-serving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't speak for NY. I've never worked there. I can only speak for DC, where l was born. And I have a much keener sense of it's history and demographics than you likely do.

So tell me, what impact has N Street Village had on Logan Circle?

Mostly it helps with assuaging white guilt and letting them feel better about themselves, which was the goal.

What did Nietzsche say about altruism?


That it was all self-serving.

Are you the flipper who posted earlier? I meant has N Street Village prevented "end stage gentrification"

But thanks for revealing your political philosophical biases. Needless to say, we do not all share them.

BTW, I am pretty sure FN did not recommend a life chasing after possessions either. Though I am sure you have told yourself you do what you do in order to define your own set of values.

[Anonymous]

https://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/would-friedrich-nietzsche-have-admired-ayn-rand/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Are you the flipper who posted earlier? I meant has N Street Village prevented "end stage gentrification"

Urban liberals like to view economically and socially disadvantaged minorities like they are some kind of "pet". A creature too stupid or inept to take care of itself, so it becomes a modern day White Man's Burden to look after these poor unfortunates, who just can't make it without the support and nuturing from a wealthy white benefactor.

That disgusitng attitude goes a long way towards explaining N street Village

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Are you the flipper who posted earlier? I meant has N Street Village prevented "end stage gentrification"

Urban liberals like to view economically and socially disadvantaged minorities like they are some kind of "pet". A creature too stupid or inept to take care of itself, so it becomes a modern day White Man's Burden to look after these poor unfortunates, who just can't make it without the support and nuturing from a wealthy white benefactor.

That disgusitng attitude goes a long way towards explaining N street Village

You seem unable to answer the question, ando to be more interested in right wing politics and philosophy than in discussing the urbanext development.

[Anonymous]

Whites surgically segregate their children's education no matter where they live. Even the liberal whites aren't crazy enough to subject their children to liberal nonsense.