Gentrification shaming makes no sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh my stars! It doesn’t even have a BACKSPLASH?! How have you been feeding your family?

What a helpful and relevant comment. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Up in Baltimore, gentrification happens in poor white neighborhoods like Hampden and the old working class waterfront areas. Yet no one complains even though the base arguments remain the same. It shows that most of the race complaints are really class complaints.

As someone from Baltimore, I can tell you that the poor white trash selling their houses in Hampden are coming into unimaginable windfalls thanks to gentrification. They aren't complaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, people said rude stuff to us when we bought a starter house *gasp* a few miles outside the beltway (we work in the suburbs so it’s not even like we were commuting to DC). We got snarky comments about wanting the space of a house and not just staying in a small rental condo to be close to everything.

Fast forward 8 years and we made a bunch of money off that starter house while our friends were busy renting in DC/Arlington. Now we were able to buy a house in N Arlington thanks to our profits and in the meantime our friends who were renting got priced out of close-in neighborhoods and ended up *gasp* outside the beltway where they made fun of us for living.

FWIW, there’s nothing wrong with those neighborhoods where they moved. But it does irritate me a bit that when we lived just beyond 495 it was the “end of the world” and now that they live there they talk about how great it is.

My point being, focus on you. Any commentary from others is a reflection of their own issues as a PP pointed out.

People are always going to judge, regardless. I would absolutely judge anyone who used the phrase starter home as materialistic and wasteful, regardless of where they chose to live. We bought in a less desirable part of DC 20 years ago and have certainly reaped financial benefits for doing so. But urban living, even in a SFH with a large backyard has pluses and minuses, I would never live in Virginia, but Annapolis sounds nice. I wouldn't have said than 20 years ago, but as you get older, you do want more nature around you to decompress.

So anyone who buys a home just to get on the property ladder knowing that it isn’t where they want to be long term, and actually admits it is just a point of starting out is materialist and wasteful? That’s crazy. Most people can’t afford the house/location they really want with their first purchase and know a piece of real estate is just a means to an end. There’s nothing bad or materialistic about a starting point.

Kinda, yeah. People who refer to their homes as starter homes ARE usually materialistic and wasteful types who view home ownership as a ladder and think that they deserve HGTV-style living. It's like no one in their family had a home less than 3000 SF where children shared bedrooms and there was no "master suite." It's gross.

I’m the original poster who referred to our “starter home,” which came with a crappy commute and was 40 years old with “updates” done by the prior owners that we never would have picked ourselves. Our move up home, which we hope to stay in as kids grow and renovate over time, is 2200 sq ft and comes with a very short commute, walkable amenities, and great neighborhood where we plan to stay, but only 1 upstairs bathroom that we share with our kids. The kitchen hasn’t been updated since the early 1980s and doesn’t even have backsplash. So take your HGTV materialistic stereotype and shove it. The vast majority of people I know who didn’t have lots of family help started out in older townhomes or small city condos or houses far from their jobs with the hopes of saving up for something that meets what they want longer term as income goes up, student loans get paid off, and childcare expenses go down.

The fact you are unfamiliar with “starter homes” in this area makes me think you’re incredibly out of touch. You’re probably some boomer who never had to compete with buying in a tight market. Or you live nowhere near DC.

Oh you millennial materialistic types are hilarious! We rented in a dodgy apartment for 10 years before we bought a modest DC home with no help from boomer mommy and daddy - while paying our student loans and suffering the grave tragedy that is a backsplash-kitchen. I hope that you live with the deep trauma of 1980s styling - you didn’t get to experience it the first time in was in fashion - it must be horrifying for your coddled soul...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, people said rude stuff to us when we bought a starter house *gasp* a few miles outside the beltway (we work in the suburbs so it’s not even like we were commuting to DC). We got snarky comments about wanting the space of a house and not just staying in a small rental condo to be close to everything.

Fast forward 8 years and we made a bunch of money off that starter house while our friends were busy renting in DC/Arlington. Now we were able to buy a house in N Arlington thanks to our profits and in the meantime our friends who were renting got priced out of close-in neighborhoods and ended up *gasp* outside the beltway where they made fun of us for living.

FWIW, there’s nothing wrong with those neighborhoods where they moved. But it does irritate me a bit that when we lived just beyond 495 it was the “end of the world” and now that they live there they talk about how great it is.

My point being, focus on you. Any commentary from others is a reflection of their own issues as a PP pointed out.

People are always going to judge, regardless. I would absolutely judge anyone who used the phrase starter home as materialistic and wasteful, regardless of where they chose to live. We bought in a less desirable part of DC 20 years ago and have certainly reaped financial benefits for doing so. But urban living, even in a SFH with a large backyard has pluses and minuses, I would never live in Virginia, but Annapolis sounds nice. I wouldn't have said than 20 years ago, but as you get older, you do want more nature around you to decompress.

So anyone who buys a home just to get on the property ladder knowing that it isn’t where they want to be long term, and actually admits it is just a point of starting out is materialist and wasteful? That’s crazy. Most people can’t afford the house/location they really want with their first purchase and know a piece of real estate is just a means to an end. There’s nothing bad or materialistic about a starting point.

Kinda, yeah. People who refer to their homes as starter homes ARE usually materialistic and wasteful types who view home ownership as a ladder and think that they deserve HGTV-style living. It's like no one in their family had a home less than 3000 SF where children shared bedrooms and there was no "master suite." It's gross.

I’m the original poster who referred to our “starter home,” which came with a crappy commute and was 40 years old with “updates” done by the prior owners that we never would have picked ourselves. Our move up home, which we hope to stay in as kids grow and renovate over time, is 2200 sq ft and comes with a very short commute, walkable amenities, and great neighborhood where we plan to stay, but only 1 upstairs bathroom that we share with our kids. The kitchen hasn’t been updated since the early 1980s and doesn’t even have backsplash. So take your HGTV materialistic stereotype and shove it. The vast majority of people I know who didn’t have lots of family help started out in older townhomes or small city condos or houses far from their jobs with the hopes of saving up for something that meets what they want longer term as income goes up, student loans get paid off, and childcare expenses go down.

The fact you are unfamiliar with “starter homes” in this area makes me think you’re incredibly out of touch. You’re probably some boomer who never had to compete with buying in a tight market. Or you live nowhere near DC.

NP. I'm very familiar with the term starter home, but I find it distasteful because I've had experience with that same tight market. The home I bought is likely the only one I'll ever be able to afford and it's very much what people think of as a starter home. That term shows that you think the life most people live is only worthwhile as a beginning.

Your attitude is materialistic. You're living a dream life (home ownership, short commute, walkable amenities) but whining about backsplashes and bathrooms. You talk about boomers but you're hideously out of touch with millennial life if you think you're making sacrifice. You're not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First off, if you bought a place in Columbia Heights in 2020, you aren't exactly on the leading edge of gentrification.

But more importantly, you're right. What do your friends say when you make these points to them?

Yes, totally, we are hardly at the bleeding edge of gentrification. But even if we bought somewhere, say, East of the River, I still wouldn’t see an issue with it. I understand the issue when new people move in and start calling the cops on all their neighbors and don’t care to meet them, but we of course won’t do any of that. We’re looking forward to getting to know all our neighbors.

One friend suggested I should have moved to a rural white community that I could afford, and then I wouldn’t be displacing anyone. Another friend paid twice what I did (with help of course) to limit herself to WOTP neighborhoods, which apparently is somehow more ethical. Baffling.

How newcomers like you and your friends couldn’t fathom that my white mother grew up in Columbia Heights my white grandfather went to Eastern HS and my great grandmother lived near Bladensburg Rd and NY Ave. Three generations of EOTP but my skin is white. Would I have permission to live there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First off, if you bought a place in Columbia Heights in 2020, you aren't exactly on the leading edge of gentrification.

But more importantly, you're right. What do your friends say when you make these points to them?

Yes, totally, we are hardly at the bleeding edge of gentrification. But even if we bought somewhere, say, East of the River, I still wouldn’t see an issue with it. I understand the issue when new people move in and start calling the cops on all their neighbors and don’t care to meet them, but we of course won’t do any of that. We’re looking forward to getting to know all our neighbors.

One friend suggested I should have moved to a rural white community that I could afford, and then I wouldn’t be displacing anyone. Another friend paid twice what I did (with help of course) to limit herself to WOTP neighborhoods, which apparently is somehow more ethical. Baffling.

Okay, OP is a troll. These conversations didn't happen.

+3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Because you're pushing people out of the neighborhood who possibly lived there for generations and can't afford it anymore (rent or property taxes) due to people like you.

Whether this bothers you or not is one thing but it's absolutely true that this is a real thing going on.

Right - but the question becomes - as an UMC white family - what should you do? I don't want to live surrounded by all white people. I want my kid to have a diverse friend group, racially, ethnically, and socio-economically. While yes, UMC white people moving into historically black neighborhoods pushes black people out. But the alternative is to move to a white-only area, which seems worse to me.

It seems to me that the system here is clearly racist, but that individual families moving to black neighborhoods (as primary residences) aren't doing anything wrong, and may in fact be doing the best they can to fight racism. What would you propose they do instead? Move to Arlington?

PP. The thing is, it's obviously fine and maybe even good for society when it's just one or two white families moving in and integrating the neighborhood (assuming you are decent people and use the neighborhood public schools/don't call the cops on your neighbors for noise or other petty complaints, etc.).

however, it gets to be a big problem without a good solution when it's tons of white families doing it and completely changing the cultural tenor of the area. See, for example: Brooklyn and all its myriad problems related to this issue.

You really don't get why the old families are unhappy about this? It's not just having to see white faces. It's all the restaurants and bars and stores that come in chasing their money, which they can't afford and which raise their rents. It's their schools changing and no longer servicing their community's needs.

There is a lot of literature about this issue, I shouldn't have to tell you this. None of this is a mystery.

Wait, but another comment said that white people moving into a black neighborhood can be more ethical by sending their kids to local schools and changing them for the better. Now I’m even more confused.

PP, again, I think everyone agrees with you and understands the macro issue. But you still haven’t answered the question of specifically what one individual UMC white person’s responsibility is.

I think it's along the lines of: don't move in and start throwing your weight (money/education) around. Don't push the school to start changing how it does things right away. Be a good neighbor. Don't call the cops for noise complaints or "junk" in someone's yard or some other petty reason. Don't call the cops on groups of teenagers "loitering." Don't get scared by seeing a group of black teens hanging out on the corner. Don't call the cops on black people at all.

I'm not at all saying you wouldn't be a good neighbor. But let's be real, many white people have a problem with entitlement due to how they grew up. They will go into a school and start pushing for changes right away that would benefit their special snowflake over other kids who have been there longer. They have a hard time understanding that their needs/issues/concerns shouldn't always get first priority.

Really? Can’t call the cops on a black person for any reason at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, people said rude stuff to us when we bought a starter house *gasp* a few miles outside the beltway (we work in the suburbs so it’s not even like we were commuting to DC). We got snarky comments about wanting the space of a house and not just staying in a small rental condo to be close to everything.

Fast forward 8 years and we made a bunch of money off that starter house while our friends were busy renting in DC/Arlington. Now we were able to buy a house in N Arlington thanks to our profits and in the meantime our friends who were renting got priced out of close-in neighborhoods and ended up *gasp* outside the beltway where they made fun of us for living.

FWIW, there’s nothing wrong with those neighborhoods where they moved. But it does irritate me a bit that when we lived just beyond 495 it was the “end of the world” and now that they live there they talk about how great it is.

My point being, focus on you. Any commentary from others is a reflection of their own issues as a PP pointed out.

People are always going to judge, regardless. I would absolutely judge anyone who used the phrase starter home as materialistic and wasteful, regardless of where they chose to live. We bought in a less desirable part of DC 20 years ago and have certainly reaped financial benefits for doing so. But urban living, even in a SFH with a large backyard has pluses and minuses, I would never live in Virginia, but Annapolis sounds nice. I wouldn't have said than 20 years ago, but as you get older, you do want more nature around you to decompress.

So anyone who buys a home just to get on the property ladder knowing that it isn’t where they want to be long term, and actually admits it is just a point of starting out is materialist and wasteful? That’s crazy. Most people can’t afford the house/location they really want with their first purchase and know a piece of real estate is just a means to an end. There’s nothing bad or materialistic about a starting point.

Kinda, yeah. People who refer to their homes as starter homes ARE usually materialistic and wasteful types who view home ownership as a ladder and think that they deserve HGTV-style living. It's like no one in their family had a home less than 3000 SF where children shared bedrooms and there was no "master suite." It's gross.

I’m the original poster who referred to our “starter home,” which came with a crappy commute and was 40 years old with “updates” done by the prior owners that we never would have picked ourselves. Our move up home, which we hope to stay in as kids grow and renovate over time, is 2200 sq ft and comes with a very short commute, walkable amenities, and great neighborhood where we plan to stay, but only 1 upstairs bathroom that we share with our kids. The kitchen hasn’t been updated since the early 1980s and doesn’t even have backsplash. So take your HGTV materialistic stereotype and shove it. The vast majority of people I know who didn’t have lots of family help started out in older townhomes or small city condos or houses far from their jobs with the hopes of saving up for something that meets what they want longer term as income goes up, student loans get paid off, and childcare expenses go down.

The fact you are unfamiliar with “starter homes” in this area makes me think you’re incredibly out of touch. You’re probably some boomer who never had to compete with buying in a tight market. Or you live nowhere near DC.

Oh you millennial materialistic types are hilarious! We rented in a dodgy apartment for 10 years before we bought a modest DC home with no help from boomer mommy and daddy - while paying our student loans and suffering the grave tragedy that is a backsplash-kitchen. I hope that you live with the deep trauma of 1980s styling - you didn’t get to experience it the first time in was in fashion - it must be horrifying for your coddled soul...

Hi! I also rented for 10 years, but my modest 1500 sq ft townhouse is a long commute outside DC because I didn't have an extra 150-200k for the cheapest place within the city. (So I couldn't gentrify DC if I wanted to!) I have spent most of my home improvement budget so far doing roof repairs and removing lead paint, nothing cosmetic.. i am grateful for my home and hope to be here at least several years,, but I would, someday, like to move to another house. 1800 sq feet and a parking spot and larger yard would be sufficient, but was not on the market withn our budget when we moved. Sorry to be so, so super gross and materialistic! Definitely i am far more greedy than someone who had more money to spend at the time.

[Anonymous]

Support tax credits to limit year by year tax increases, so taxes only jump when someone sells. Then gentrify without guilt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no winning in the court of public opinion. These same people would shame you if you moved to the suburbs & didn't keep your kids in DC public schools. Make your own choices, that you believe are ethical, & don't mind the noise.

+1 My husband and I have gentrified more than our fair share of neighborhoods. There is no winning in this battle field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh my stars! It doesn’t even have a BACKSPLASH?! How have you been feeding your family?

My goodness you are dense and incapable of reading comprehension. No one said you can’t survive in a house without backsplash. I’m just tired of all these throwaway comments about how house buyers today all watch HGTV and insist on giant new construction when that isn’t the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, people said rude stuff to us when we bought a starter house *gasp* a few miles outside the beltway (we work in the suburbs so it’s not even like we were commuting to DC). We got snarky comments about wanting the space of a house and not just staying in a small rental condo to be close to everything.

Fast forward 8 years and we made a bunch of money off that starter house while our friends were busy renting in DC/Arlington. Now we were able to buy a house in N Arlington thanks to our profits and in the meantime our friends who were renting got priced out of close-in neighborhoods and ended up *gasp* outside the beltway where they made fun of us for living.

FWIW, there’s nothing wrong with those neighborhoods where they moved. But it does irritate me a bit that when we lived just beyond 495 it was the “end of the world” and now that they live there they talk about how great it is.

My point being, focus on you. Any commentary from others is a reflection of their own issues as a PP pointed out.

People are always going to judge, regardless. I would absolutely judge anyone who used the phrase starter home as materialistic and wasteful, regardless of where they chose to live. We bought in a less desirable part of DC 20 years ago and have certainly reaped financial benefits for doing so. But urban living, even in a SFH with a large backyard has pluses and minuses, I would never live in Virginia, but Annapolis sounds nice. I wouldn't have said than 20 years ago, but as you get older, you do want more nature around you to decompress.

So anyone who buys a home just to get on the property ladder knowing that it isn’t where they want to be long term, and actually admits it is just a point of starting out is materialist and wasteful? That’s crazy. Most people can’t afford the house/location they really want with their first purchase and know a piece of real estate is just a means to an end. There’s nothing bad or materialistic about a starting point.

Kinda, yeah. People who refer to their homes as starter homes ARE usually materialistic and wasteful types who view home ownership as a ladder and think that they deserve HGTV-style living. It's like no one in their family had a home less than 3000 SF where children shared bedrooms and there was no "master suite." It's gross.

I’m the original poster who referred to our “starter home,” which came with a crappy commute and was 40 years old with “updates” done by the prior owners that we never would have picked ourselves. Our move up home, which we hope to stay in as kids grow and renovate over time, is 2200 sq ft and comes with a very short commute, walkable amenities, and great neighborhood where we plan to stay, but only 1 upstairs bathroom that we share with our kids. The kitchen hasn’t been updated since the early 1980s and doesn’t even have backsplash. So take your HGTV materialistic stereotype and shove it. The vast majority of people I know who didn’t have lots of family help started out in older townhomes or small city condos or houses far from their jobs with the hopes of saving up for something that meets what they want longer term as income goes up, student loans get paid off, and childcare expenses go down.

The fact you are unfamiliar with “starter homes” in this area makes me think you’re incredibly out of touch. You’re probably some boomer who never had to compete with buying in a tight market. Or you live nowhere near DC.

Oh you millennial materialistic types are hilarious! We rented in a dodgy apartment for 10 years before we bought a modest DC home with no help from boomer mommy and daddy - while paying our student loans and suffering the grave tragedy that is a backsplash-kitchen. I hope that you live with the deep trauma of 1980s styling - you didn’t get to experience it the first time in was in fashion - it must be horrifying for your coddled soul...

Hi! I also rented for 10 years, but my modest 1500 sq ft townhouse is a long commute outside DC because I didn't have an extra 150-200k for the cheapest place within the city. (So I couldn't gentrify DC if I wanted to!) I have spent most of my home improvement budget so far doing roof repairs and removing lead paint, nothing cosmetic.. i am grateful for my home and hope to be here at least several years,, but I would, someday, like to move to another house. 1800 sq feet and a parking spot and larger yard would be sufficient, but was not on the market withn our budget when we moved. Sorry to be so, so super gross and materialistic! Definitely i am far more greedy than someone who had more money to spend at the time.

Didn’t you get the memo. If you dare to want to move up the property ladder it must automatically mean you binge HGTV all day and only want to move for the sake of granite counter tops and six bedrooms. If you’re not satisfied with living forever in the first piece of real property that you purchased, then you’re a greedy materialist millennial. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Because you're pushing people out of the neighborhood who possibly lived there for generations and can't afford it anymore (rent or property taxes) due to people like you.

Whether this bothers you or not is one thing but it's absolutely true that this is a real thing going on.

Right - but the question becomes - as an UMC white family - what should you do? I don't want to live surrounded by all white people. I want my kid to have a diverse friend group, racially, ethnically, and socio-economically. While yes, UMC white people moving into historically black neighborhoods pushes black people out. But the alternative is to move to a white-only area, which seems worse to me.

It seems to me that the system here is clearly racist, but that individual families moving to black neighborhoods (as primary residences) aren't doing anything wrong, and may in fact be doing the best they can to fight racism. What would you propose they do instead? Move to Arlington?

I hear you. I think advocating for mixed and low-income housing throughout the city is important. Also are you willing to send your kids to the neighborhood school (and follow the lead of current parents there rather think that you can help "fix" things)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's no solution.

White people leave = white flight = racism

White people move in = gentrification = racism

White people stay in their enclaves = segregation = racism


Basically, don't live anywhere because it is racist.

This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Long post, sorry. A lot of thoughts. I am a white gentrifier in DC. I don't say that with pride, but I also don't say it from a place of guilt, either. Like OP, we are a white couple who bought in a predominantly black neighborhood because we wanted to stay in the city, wanted a neighborhood that was close in with density and walkability, and had limited funds. But I know what we are. We knew it when we bought, and we were among the only white people around. And we really know it now that our block is more white than black and the general vibe of the neighborhood has changed.

I feel really conflicted about it because it certainly wasn't our intention to usher in an influx of UMC white people to the neighborhood. And we know it would have happened whether we had bought our home or not, because the gentrification trend in DC is bigger and more powerful than our individual choice. But I am also certain that some of new, white neighbors only felt comfortable buying here once we, and other like us, already had. We're part of it whether we want to be or not, because we are white and we are relatively economically privileged. We can't pretend we aren't because we've lived here longer or because we aren't as rich as the new neighbors.

I do think the advice in this thread about how to be a good neighbor is smart. Yes, do not call the cops on black people in your new, predominantly black neighborhood. If you can, send your kids to the neighborhood school and don't go in wanting to prioritize the needs of your UMC white kids over the needs of the many less privileged black and brown kids already attending the school. Get to know your neighbors. Participate in neighborhood clean ups. Say hi on the street! All of this is good.

But it's also more complex than that and I still don't know the answer. Now we feel caught in between at all times -- we are far more privileged than our original neighbors, many of whom are still around. But we're nowhere close to as privileged as our newest neighbors, mostly DINKs who paid close to a million for their row homes and have very high expectations for the kind of lifestyle and amenities their neighborhood should offer at that price point. We were happy when the WF and the TJs went in. We are glad the schools are improving. We like having more bars and restaurants going in, though increasingly they are too expensive for us and we wonder if we, too, are being priced out of the neighborhood.

I'd like to see more policy in DC that supports affordable housing, that supports a socioeconomic mix in neighborhoods and that leads to more development that benefits local businesses, especially black-owned businesses. We have actually worked with a couple organization that do just that, and it feels good. But when I compare it to the forces they are working against -- massive developers, wealthy professionals with money to burn and a newfound interest in a specific kind of urban lifestyle -- and I just feel like it might be too late to balance the scales.

We talk about moving again, seeing if we can find a close in suburbs that still has some density and real racial and socioeconomic diversity, but where prices aren't accelerating at quite the same rate and where we'd feel more kinship with our neighbors. I don't even know if one exists. I do think what's happening is unsustainable and I wish I knew th answer.

Appreciate these thoughts - articulate and relatable.