I’ve noticed that Gentrification is much more about driving the poor people out because when you buy a $1m home, you don’t want trash all over the sidewalks, or a jungle in your neighbor’s yard, or car break ins. You would prefer a Chipotle to a check cashing place. And don’t get me started about preferring a dog park to an open air drug market. It’s really not about race, it’s about SES.

I want to tear down all the single homes in wards 2 and 3 and build low cost housing. It will do so much for the city!! And have the city hold contracts for the upkeep of the buildings and property too.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Ok, but "increasing density" never actually happens in wealthy neighborhoods. It *only* happens in black neighborhoods where whites are trying to push them out.

Yes, and that's why I'm in favor of increasing it in my wealthy neighborhood instead.

Anonymous wrote:It’s always the evil white folks pushing out the sad, good black folks. For no reason.

Last time I checked there are wealthy blacks in the DMV looking for
Closer in homes to purchase in the city. Latinos in large numbers work in DC and also want decent housing. Frankly - it is in everyone’s best interest to get the dumpy parts of DC cleaned up and desirable for all.

The Mayor of Washington, DC lives in a SFH in a neighborhood popular with upper income black families among others.

It’s always the evil white folks pushing out the sad, good black folks. For no reason.

Last time I checked there are wealthy blacks in the DMV looking for
Closer in homes to purchase in the city. Latinos in large numbers work in DC and also want decent housing. Frankly - it is in everyone’s best interest to get the dumpy parts of DC cleaned up and desirable for all.

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.

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.

Ok, but "increasing density" never actually happens in wealthy neighborhoods. It *only* happens in black neighborhoods where whites are trying to push them out.

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.

Except that's the area where density can be most significantly increased near transit -- because it's not very dense right now and is near multiple bus lines and Metro stops -- and where the existing residents have the most political clout to prevent it. So positioning "increased density" as always bad helps prevent densification of an area that's gentrification-proof because it's already wealthy. I'm against displacing existing residents in "gentrifying" neighborhoods, and for building more affordable housing in neighborhoods that have the space for it and currently don't have much. It's unfortunate that arguments against gentrification have also been used to prevent other kinds of development.