Gentrification issues

[Aepervius]

I really don't get anti-gentrification activism. Everyone deserves to live somewhere. And people banding together to keep a hated "other" out just always strikes me as wrong. I get that people like affordable housing but to me the solution would seem to be build more housing. Not keep those people from moving in!

Am I completely off base about this?

Here is the problem : nobody want to build low cost building anymore except when forced to. (even if there was place which often in big city there is not)

What would you rather build ? A 10 million pound building with 40 tenants and a lot of law to respect and maintenance, with limitation on rent rise or even some duty and rights, for which you will maybe get a measily few % profit, or a series of 10 houses, that you will almost certainly sale immediately, with a high 2 digits percentage profit , without bothering with tenants ?

So people which cannot afford newly gentrified area are effectively kicked out, with more cost (the move + fuel maybe due to distance to work being greater) and maybe even a worst area to inhabit in.

That is the problem "gentrification=good" people tend to completely overlook. It is good for the NEW people living in the area, but those who cannot afford the new prices effectively you WILL make their life worst.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm all for anti-airbnb laws, that's a quality of life issue too. But how is a construction moratorium supposed to keep rents from rising, you'd think it would do the opposite?

Depends on the construction. Building luxury apartments near an area could well raise the prestige of the area causing rents to go up. Building is an important part of change but it doesn't mean any construction will help keep an area affordable.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I can't pretend that one size fits all but I know in San Francisco the issue is basically one of lack of domiciles. The same neighborhoods that protest against Google workers moving in have also, for decades, prevented any new construction of tall residential towers. And now there is a severe housing shortage. How could you complain about what would seem to be fairly inevitable results?

That and no one wants to move to oakland.

 

[angrysoba]

I really don't get anti-gentrification activism. Everyone deserves to live somewhere. And people banding together to keep a hated "other" out just always strikes me as wrong. I get that people like affordable housing but to me the solution would seem to be build more housing. Not keep those people from moving in!

Am I completely off base about this?

That's easy for you to say; you live in a crime-ridden white-supremacist post apocalyptic crystal meth-addled crack-den psychoville. When people start bringing in supermarkets, restaurants, law and order, rail links and hummus cafes and your house starts soaring in value then you'll change your tune. It'll be a nightmare!

 

[truethat]

Here is the problem : nobody want to build low cost building anymore except when forced to. (even if there was place which often in big city there is not)

What would you rather build ? A 10 million pound building with 40 tenants and a lot of law to respect and maintenance, with limitation on rent rise or even some duty and rights, for which you will maybe get a measily few % profit, or a series of 10 houses, that you will almost certainly sale immediately, with a high 2 digits percentage profit , without bothering with tenants ?

So people which cannot afford newly gentrified area are effectively kicked out, with more cost (the move + fuel maybe due to distance to work being greater) and maybe even a worst area to inhabit in.

That is the problem "gentrification=good" people tend to completely overlook. It is good for the NEW people living in the area, but those who cannot afford the new prices effectively you WILL make their life worst.

Well said. Not only that but displacing Mom and Pop grocery stores with fancy pants places like Whole Foods, effectively makes grocery shopping in their own neighborhood unaffordable.

 

[carlitos]

Well said. Not only that but displacing Mom and Pop grocery stores with fancy pants places like Whole Foods, effectively makes grocery shopping in their own neighborhood unaffordable.

Like mom and pop grocery stores are more affordable? Please give examples with numbers. In my experience, mom and pop grocery stores take large margins.

 

[deadrose]

Seattle's been in the thick of this for a while now, and it's only getting worse. Developers snap up anything that goes on the market, rip it down, and put a 6 or 10-pack in its place, and thanks to the city's architecture & planning commission, they all look like ugly warehouses.

If they can get a bigger plot of land, they slap up apartments or condos in the same hideous warehouse aesthetic. They are required to put a small number of lower-income apartments in (generally not truly low-income) and keep them at below market rate for a length of time like 5 years. After that, the lower-income rates go poof.

Already most poorer people (and around here that seems to mean <$50k) are being forced out to the more distant suburbs or further. Then they have to spend a good chunk of their time & income commuting to work while the tech folks commute in from the nearby neighborhoods, on bicycles that cost more than used cars. The city is becoming whiter, too.

We're just hanging on by the skin of our teeth here. One good rent bump and we'll have to leave as well.

 

[dudalb]

I came across this article in Buzzfeed. It certainly doesn't make me feel and sympathy for these anti-gentrification protesters whatsoever.

The Shoreditch Cereal Café Was Attacked By Anti-Gentrification Protesters



Basically the sentiment is we hate outsiders and we feel entitled to use violence to keep them out. Not much different from the KKK burning a cross on a black family's lawn to scare them out of the neighborhood.

I love the paring of Saudi Shieks and Israeli Slumlords. Nice to Jews and Arabs working together for something....

 

[dudalb]

I can't pretend that one size fits all but I know in San Francisco the issue is basically one of lack of domiciles. The same neighborhoods that protest against Google workers moving in have also, for decades, prevented any new construction of tall residential towers. And now there is a severe housing shortage. How could you complain about what would seem to be fairly inevitable results?

And the problem is worse in S.F because of Mother Nature:The City is surrounded on Three sides by Water and on the fourth by steep hills;housing simply cannot expand on the ground;you have to go to high rise resendentials or just accept a lower population.
I love S.F. with a passion,but ,frankly,the voters their make some incredibly stupid decisions.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And the problem is worse in S.F because of Mother Nature:The City is surrounded on Three sides by Water and on the fourth by steep hills;housing simply cannot expand on the ground;you have to go to high rise resendentials or just accept a lower population.
I love S.F. with a passion,but ,frankly,the voters their make some incredibly stupid decisions.

Add in that the city refuses to allow an increase in housing density or taller buildings to the mix to. Building new buildings at all in SF is almost impossible.

This means they don't have the developers knocking down buildings and building larger ones in their place full of luxury condos.

Or what expect people to live in oakland?

 

[Information Analyst]

As a matter of fact, yes, you are somewhat off-base. Many people actually *don't* like affordable housing, on the basis that it attracts unwanted "others" - in the US, this usually means poorer people or minorities. Yes, there's certainly going to be changes in prices and social demographics in neighborhoods as new people move in - that's how it has always worked, and of course long-time residents won't like seeing their neighborhoods change from outside forces - especially when they see their city suddenly spending money on the newer residents that they refused to spend back before they moved in. But there are also plenty of landlords in, say, NYC, who more or less force older residents out at the insistence of newer people, folks who actively work to end long-standing traditions in the neighborhood, and the like.

ETA: as far as the recent London protest goes...I have no clue about what the local issues there are, so I won't claim that anything i said applies to that situation.

Well, in London, "affordable housing" will include properties that are within the means of undesirable "others" like nurses and teachers...

 

[luchog]

I can't pretend that one size fits all but I know in San Francisco the issue is basically one of lack of domiciles. The same neighborhoods that protest against Google workers moving in have also, for decades, prevented any new construction of tall residential towers. And now there is a severe housing shortage. How could you complain about what would seem to be fairly inevitable results?

There is a similar problem here; although not entirely the same.

There is certainly new construction going on, but it's all higher-end property, mostly condos (fortunately falling off) and apartments. Single-family houses and low-income housing are being bulldozed in favour of upscale construction.

This corresponds with a huge influx of people into the area thanks to the IT industry (predominantly Amazon and Microsoft) importing literally thousands of new people into the area, rather than employing locals.

 

[deadrose]

Well, in London, "affordable housing" will include properties that are within the means of undesirable "others" like nurses and teachers...

Yep, those are the same people being priced out of Seattle. Also cops & firefighters, which means they don't see this as their city, just the hive of scum & villainy where they work. (see Seattle PD, use of force decree).

 

[Information Analyst]

Basically the sentiment is we hate outsiders and we feel entitled to use violence to keep them out. Not much different from the KKK burning a cross on a black family's lawn to scare them out of the neighborhood.

You probably don't understand that one of the sections you quotes is perhaps the most pertinent:

On the event’s website it says: “Our communities are being ripped apart – by Russian oligarchs, Saudi Sheiks, Israeli scumbag property developers, Texan oil-money twats and our own home-grown Eton toffs.” “We don’t want luxury flats that no one can afford, we want genuinely affordable housing. We don’t want pop-up gin bars or brioche buns – we want community.”

“Soon this City will be an unrecognisable, bland, yuppie infested wasteland with no room for normal (and not so normal) people like us.”

Gentrification wouldn't be as big a problem as it is in London if there were actually cheaper places for the displaced to move to, but the aren't. The market is being totally skewed by the hi-lited guilty parties, who snap up new properties and often never even occupy them.

 

[Information Analyst]

High value residences can't be built forever. Once that market is tapped out it makes sense to go where demand is. The issue of developers wanting to build high value properties is another artifact of a constrained market. If there are very few opportunities to build they will go with the best margins for the fewest units. Less risk. Distribute risk and then that aspect goes away.

You probably don't realise that in London a lot of high-value properties are being bought as an inherent investment, and not actually occupied, either by the buyers or tenants. We are actually seeing examples of such properties being bought by shell companies to hide their true owners, and only a minority actually registering for local property tax.

 

[mgidm86]

Add in that the city refuses to allow an increase in housing density or taller buildings to the mix to. Building new buildings at all in SF is almost impossible.

This means they don't have the developers knocking down buildings and building larger ones in their place full of luxury condos.

Or what expect people to live in oakland?

San Francisco does not need more people crammed in there, it is full. Driving through the city is a nightmare (and a bad idea in general), rents are sky-high because there are too many people. Why anyone would want to live there, regardless of their job, is beyond me.

Down here in San Jose a whole bunch of apartments are being constructed in an already congested area. Not enough schools, not enough parking, not enough stores and not enough roadway - yet up they go! It's not near enough to me to affect me in a big way, but it just seems stupid to keep cramming people into the same areas decade after decade.

 

[ponderingturtle]

San Francisco does not need more people crammed in there, it is full. Driving through the city is a nightmare (and a bad idea in general), rents are sky-high because there are too many people. Why anyone would want to live there, regardless of their job, is beyond me.

Yet it does not have a terribly high population density. It is much lower than NYC for example.

They need to take a lesson from Detroit that is how you fight gentrification!

 

[Travis]

Here is the problem : nobody want to build low cost building anymore except when forced to. (even if there was place which often in big city there is not)

What would you rather build ? A 10 million pound building with 40 tenants and a lot of law to respect and maintenance, with limitation on rent rise or even some duty and rights, for which you will maybe get a measily few % profit, or a series of 10 houses, that you will almost certainly sale immediately, with a high 2 digits percentage profit , without bothering with tenants ?

So people which cannot afford newly gentrified area are effectively kicked out, with more cost (the move + fuel maybe due to distance to work being greater) and maybe even a worst area to inhabit in.

That is the problem "gentrification=good" people tend to completely overlook. It is good for the NEW people living in the area, but those who cannot afford the new prices effectively you WILL make their life worst.

I'd build whatever there is a market for. There are only so many rich people and loads more poorer people. Once the market for high end properties is tapped out you build for what people are willing to buy. I've seen this in Chicago where once a few high end condo developments failed to sell out they started to build buildings for other income brackets. Chicago achieved this by basically greenlighting anything that was proposed until the market for high end condos was woefully oversaturated.

Possibly not but in markets like London there is still a very high demand for high value residences due to the size of the market and the lack of available building space.



In London (and other high demand places in the UK) the market is never tapped out because the lack of available building plots means that demand always exceeds supply.

For example, however much demand there may be for property around this area, the fact that our village is in an Area of Outstanding Natural beauty means that it's almost impossible to get permission to build a property which in turn means that demand (and hence price) is sky-high.



That's all very well and good in places where building plots are easy to come by and are cheap but in the UK this is rarely the case in the parts of the country where demand is high. The causes of this are no-doubt complicated but IMO include:

• The "broken" UK property market where there is a perfect storm of imbalance between supply and demand, a pathological desire to own rather than rent, the perception that your own property is an excellent investment, lack of supply and government support for the market
• An imbalance in the economy which splits into London (and environs) and the rest of the UK (well not quite but it's almost like that).
• Very restrictive planning rules which are designed to maintain "green belt"
• The UK's apparent aversion to high intensity housing

An "average" person earning an average wage of £26,500 a year can probably afford to borrow £80k to £100k. The average UK property price (that's all properties, not just houses) is £185k in London this is close to £500k. Unless you bury yourself in debt (and many people do) for the average person in the South East of England, houses are unaffordable.

If people in the UK refuse to live in high rises then the problem is their own. But from an environmental and sustainable viewpoint they should be consolidating properties over tube stations and building 50-70 floor highrises.

That's easy for you to say; you live in a crime-ridden white-supremacist post apocalyptic crystal meth-addled crack-den psychoville. When people start bringing in supermarkets, restaurants, law and order, rail links and hummus cafes and your house starts soaring in value then you'll change your tune. It'll be a nightmare!

How so? The tweekers would be driven out and I'd be able to sell my house and move elsewhere if I desired.

You probably don't realise that in London a lot of high-value properties are being bought as an inherent investment, and not actually occupied, either by the buyers or tenants. We are actually seeing examples of such properties being bought by shell companies to hide their true owners, and only a minority actually registering for local property tax.

Actually I am aware of that. Same thing happened in numerous other cities. That just means people are treating a rare commodity as an asset. The solution to this is for them to stop making money off this activity. The way to do that is to flood the market with said commodity. I've looked at London quite a bit on Google Earth and I think you could easily add a million or more residences to the city with proper engineering and better land utilization.



For some reason the quote function won't work for me in this thread. I had to multiquote then import them to another thread and copy paste. Very annoying.

 

[Information Analyst]

That's easy for you to say; you live in a crime-ridden white-supremacist post apocalyptic crystal meth-addled crack-den psychoville. When people start bringing in supermarkets, restaurants, law and order, rail links and hummus cafes and your house starts soaring in value then you'll change your tune. It'll be a nightmare!

Except that in a lot of the areas suffering gentrification in London, there already are supermarkets, restaurants, law and order, and rail links.

 

[angrysoba]

How so? The tweekers would be driven out and I'd be able to sell my house and move elsewhere if I desired.

I know. I'm joking, really. My post is a parody of those bemoaning the increase of private enterprise, investment in transportation and reduction in crime because of the effect on house prices that is caused by transforming somewhere into a desirable place to live.