jersey_girl660 t1_izgzimw wrote
Reply to comment by AbsentEmpire in Fishtown, Point Breeze have become far wealthier in the last 10 years and other new Census findings by Dryheavemorning
I literally took a class on it.
Also that article says people moved in but old residents weren’t displaced but then goes on to say the new residents replaced poorer residents…..
Very reliable. It’s Philadelphia… there’s only so much room for new construction before you have to start replacing residents.
AbsentEmpire t1_izgzthy wrote
>I literally took a class on it.
Oh well I guess that disproves the Federal Reserves multiple studies on it.
jersey_girl660 t1_izh01nf wrote
We used studies in my class.
Also from your study
“That reinforces previous research, also released by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve, that found that demographic change in gentrifying neighborhoods was a result of typical levels of population churn in lower-income neighborhood — but with existing residents more often replaced by higher-income people than by similarly situated poor people”
This is exactly the point I’m making and what the research on gentrification overwhelmingly shows. Congrats 🎉
AbsentEmpire t1_izh10ip wrote
They evidently didn't teach you to read since the rest of the paper shows your point is overblown, and the real issue is housing availability.
>Their research finds that gentrification had no discernible effect on income, employment or commuting distance for lower-income original residents, both those who were displaced and those who remained. That finding undermines the most boosterish case for gentrification, while also showing that it doesn’t massively undercut the material quality of life for poorer residents.
>The paper shows that much of the neighborhood demographic change was generated by newer, better-educated residents moving in rather than lower-income residents being forced out. That reinforces previous research, also released by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve, that found that demographic change in gentrifying neighborhoods was a result of typical levels of population churn in lower-income neighborhoods
> “That’s a reason we think you shouldn’t just design policy to protect people who are already there. If you are in a world where people just move a lot, and this change is happening through replacement effects, maybe you should make sure people can afford to move there in the future.”
jersey_girl660 t1_izh12zm wrote
Literally none of that is what I was saying but okay…. Lmao
I never once said displaced or not residents get poorer. Lmao. Or that their commuting distances increased.
This is not the issues with gentrification. And anybody who thinks those are the issues has not studied gentrification enough.
And again the last part says exactly what I’ve been saying. Most residents are displaced by new higher income residents. Say it louder for those in the back 😅
jersey_girl660 t1_izgzva7 wrote
The study you posted proved my point though?
Away_Swimming_5757 t1_izhbd1k wrote
Philadelphia had a population of 2.1 million in 1950. We are at 1.6 million currently with blocks worth of vacant lots. We would need about extra 500k to flood in before we'd be reaching the point you're talking about. Losing 25% of our population has been devastating to the tax base and funding of the city. The revitalization of Fishtown is a major success story and model for other Philadelphia neighborhoods (and a huge increase in tax revenue... all those initial 10 year tax abatements are ending and will continue to mature into their full taxation over the next 5 years).
Dryheavemorning OP t1_izh3amd wrote
> It’s Philadelphia… there’s only so much room for new construction before you have to start replacing residents.
Huh? There used to be 2 million people living in the City, now it's 1.6. Have you ever been to North Philadelphia? There's plenty of room.
jersey_girl660 t1_izh3yx2 wrote
I said there’s only so much room. And yes I’ve been to north Philadelphia….. north Philadelphia is not all of Philadelphia. There’s only so many empty lots you can build on before you have to start buying existing buildings and remodeling or demolishing them. the city is only 143 sq miles. Other then annexing land that is the size it’s always going to be. You can only build y amount on x amount of land.
If gentrification involved only building new units there would be no displacement. Old and bee residents could live together. But that’s not usually the case. Yes sometimes they build on empty lots or abandoned buildings but they just as often buy existing homes to turn into whatever it is they’re building.
An_emperor_penguin t1_izhjhjf wrote
> There’s only so many empty lots you can build on before you have to start buying existing buildings and remodeling or demolishing them
Saying this is a problem would imply people should never be able to sell their homes or move or anything, somehow the "anti gentrification" crap always comes back to shoving minorities into ghettos
>You can only build y amount on x amount of land
There's this great "new" technique of putting houses on top of each other that would let us build more :)
Dryheavemorning OP t1_izh6s1l wrote
You're acting like this is New York or SF, we don't have 400k extra people handing this way soon and Philadelphia has historically been a City of homeowners. It's true that desirable locations are limited but even those are still incredibly underdeveloped now.
I'm Fishtown adjacent and my neighbors that bought their houses for $5-15k in the 80s and 90s are very happy about the changes to the neighborhood. Many bought empty lots near their houses for next to nothing and sold them for incredible profits. "Gentrification" is such a vastly diverse experience based on hyper local circumstances that the term is near worthless and just used as a boogeyman for change.
Away_Swimming_5757 t1_izhbn5m wrote
Damn, you really have a closed mind to all the additional perspective the other commenters are sharing with you.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments