You must log in or register to comment.

Kind_Session_6986 t1_j25ulbv wrote

Politically Incorrect Opinion: We need to increase gentrification. Make streets cleaner, reduce barriers to opening businesses, and increase priorities that are associated with higher socioeconomic classes (education, public transportation and environmental considerations, access to healthy food and nature). Those things will improve our city and set it up for the future.


throws_rocks_at_cars t1_j264gwx wrote

100% of the discourse surrounding gentrification is unproductive. Gentrification is simply the racialized term for the multifaceted housing crisis.

Upwardly mobile twenty-somethings of white, Indian, or Asian descent want to live in the city. They ALSO cannot afford 1.5 million dollar single family homes. The neighborhood that is claimed to be gentrified is actually simply affordable. People have to live somewhere, and the upwardly mobile twenty-somethings have to live somewhere too. If there were more apartments available, more city centers in each city, and less development regulations, then this wouldn’t be a problem.

It’s a shame when people think they have to work their own neighborhood WORSE so that people won’t want to come there. The issue is that this doesn’t deter them from moving in anyway. And when they move in, they’ll want bike lanes, and not to have to deal with indiscriminate acts of vandalism and harassment from homeless drug addicts who hang around outside their buildings.

It is a class issue. The average 40yo lifelong neighborhood resident who doesn’t want white people moving in actually has FAR more in common with the “gentrifiers” than they do with any other group.

People that use the word gentrification unironically are either maliciously lying or just plain dumb. Especially in neighborhoods like Navy Yard in DC, or O4W in Atlanta, both of which were literally weed-filled parking lots and cratered asphalt outside of abandoned factories collecting wind-strewn litter for years, occupying half a dozen square miles of wasted space. When they were “gentrified”, maybe 40 homes were able to secure a massive bag selling to developers, and then multiple thousands of people were able to live there. Anyone arguing against this is literally malicious and hostile to their own neighbors.

They fantasize that it is a situation similar to Disney’s “Up”, but it’s not. People need to have a place to live.

It’s happening now in Chinatown. They are arguing against the completion of the Philly Rail Park, which is in a completely wasted section of the city, currently utilized for almost nothing, on the other side of Vine, and they fight against it because it will make people want to live in a neighborhood that’s closer to them.

Atlanta’s Belt Line, which is a thematically and philosophically identical project, has spurred double digit billions of dollars of infrastructure and housing investment. There are now communities for active 55+yos, housing for thousands of people, exercise, outdoor yoga, hundreds of stores and restaurants that didn’t exist before. Not to mentioned the explosion in tax base.

And they want to block this for Philadelphia because it would make their own neighborhood nicer. Even though it starts ABOVE (not in) Chinatown, and continues all the way to the art museum. And CT/Philly nimbys get to ruin it for everyone because having a software developer live within a half mile of their outermost store is simply an insurmountable offense. It’s plainly disgusting.

The entirety of it right now is abandoned rail segment surrounded by empty surface level parking lots and abandoned buildings. It could be the new center of Philly and contain housing for literally tens of thousands of people. Easily. But it can’t be done, because it would allow upwardly mobile middle class people a place to live.


throws_rocks_at_cars t1_j26d52m wrote

Also, having another place to go for coffee, drinks, food, exercise, and social gatherings is a massive boon to the city. It will REDUCE traffic (a major complaint about proposed “gentrifier” projects) because then people will have places to go OTHER than McGillins or Xfinity Live or the restaurants in the gayborhood. Creating more City centers is extremely important to resolving housing crises and reducing traffic. Only NY and maybe DC has ever actually been able build multiple “downtowns” within their downtown and in farther-out neighborhoods.

People being against the rail park, and infill housing, and office conversions, and new housing projects are the worst kind of people.


LurkersWillLurk t1_j25xpgp wrote

Philly has many problems, but having too many jobs isn’t one of them. I’m amazed how some people apparently hold both of the contradictory opinions that their neighborhood has seen too much disinvestment and that gentrification is ruining their community.


Character_Macaron133 t1_j26650l wrote

Cities full of NIMBY’s


BUrower t1_j29lrxn wrote

That's what the politicians want because new blood would vote them out for candidates who will step in a get to work fixing things.


spurius_tadius t1_j295f7v wrote

It's not politically incorrect to say. Gentrification is good. I've seen it work in Baltimore in the early naughts and I've seen it work here in Philly.

The problems we're dealing with go back 40-50 years. White flight took the rug out from many neighborhoods by removing the tax base and leaving behind only the people who could not afford to move. Of course the problems from that accumulated and showed up as decaying neighborhoods, failing schools, and all kinds of problems.

Gentrification, in a way, REPLACES the people who left during white flight. It's very much a way to restore economic balance to a community. Can it go too far? Yes, but we're a long way from reaching NYC levels of gentrification. We need more educated people, more wealth, and less dysfunction.


uptown_gargoyle t1_j25ydu7 wrote

That's also what all these candidates are saying. The usage of the word gentrification is often ambiguous because some people sometimes use it to refer to the process of economic growth and other people sometimes use it to refer to the process by which low-income residents are priced out of their own neighborhoods.

Everybody* thinks that gentrification in the first sense is good, and most people think gentrification in the displacement sense is bad. But a lot of people think you can't have the growth without displacement.

*some extreme activists are literally against growth, but that's a very vocal minority without any institutional pull


GumshoeAndy t1_j29nx52 wrote

Basically we need to clean up our city. There is nothing politically incorrect about that.


throwawaitnine t1_j263fvj wrote

>... Those things will improve our city and set it up for the future.

Emphasis mine.

What do you mean by our city? It's easy to say we got to improve our city and set up our city for the future, when our city means the city of Philadelphia.

But what if our city means, the people living in Philadelphia?

We want to see economic progress and we want to quality of life to improve for everyone. So do we do that by importing a new tax base or do we do that by lifting people out of poverty?

Because I think it's morally unambiguous, as a society we should be people first.


fuckReddit78987 t1_j25pme4 wrote

Two things:

  1. to the woman stating that gentrification is the single biggest issue point breeze faces…I’d say crime is probably issue number 1.

  2. neighborhoods are always changing in this city. Point breeze was originally European Jewish and then Italian Irish, then it became African American, now it’s becoming yuppie/gentrified. Things change, it’s how it is and always will be.

I think the city should put guardrails in place to ensure older residents aren’t priced out of their homes but besides that, you can’t really stop change.


ParallelPeterParker t1_j28qu61 wrote

I was wondering how far I'd have to scroll to see someone call that out. I don't think gentrification is even in the top 10 because it's such an amorphous, political football.


shark_skin_suit t1_j29mdup wrote

clearly you should run for mayor with your 'fuck it, that's just how it is' stance on urban life.


Indiana_Jawnz t1_j2b3xnf wrote

Are you arguing cities don't change and grow and neighborhoods haven't always changed?

Because if you are, you are wrong.


oliver_babish t1_j26o3h1 wrote

On 2, those neighborhoods changed in ethnic composition mostly; the economic change is much more recent and that's what disrupts. 25-30 years ago, Queen Village and Graduate Hospital did the same. The Northeast, by contrast, has only changed in ethnic composition but never in economics.


Dryheavemorning t1_j25v5q7 wrote

>“Gentrification is our number one problem,” longtime Point Breeze resident Betty Buford told Billy Penn in late September, standing with her neighbors at a Save Black Point Breeze rally. 

Anti-Gentrification here appears to just be code for maintenance of racial concentration/segregation based on the name of the organization doing the rally.


Unfamiliar_Word t1_j27075d wrote

I work in a job writing grant applications. I use the term, "community," an awful lot and that has begun to make me wonder if it's just a polite way of saying, "keep the wrong kind of people out," in a way that hurts the city at large more than any given neighborhood could ever suffer.


An_emperor_penguin t1_j25ymr9 wrote

Credit to Rhynhart for pointing out that they city owns thousands of vacant lots that we could build housing on, relying on for profit developers to give away money to poor people is going to run into the very obvious problem that if they don't make money they won't build anything which makes gentrification worse, when the city could just give out the subsidies directly.

MQS has a mixed record, she seems to know that TOD and mixed income bonuses are good ways to increase affordable housing but also implemented a really bad inclusionary zoning bill for her district that prevented a lot of construction because the numbers didn't work. She's been making some good twitter posts recently but we'll see how that goes as the campaign continues

Gyms statement just seems like a buzz word list without substance.

>Parker acknowledged that gentrification — which she defined as “when newer, wealthier residents move into historically poor or working class neighborhoods and price out long-time residents” — is happening in areas of the city many people never thought it would reach.

Parker seems like the one that misses the mark the most. Gentrification is people getting priced out of fancy neighborhoods and moving to the poorer one next door, you can't prevent that with renter protections and trying to force developers to give away cheap housing because there's going to be poorer people moving out/selling anyway. in a growing city any solution is going to be construction based, trying to freeze the city in amber is going to make everything worse


JesusOfBeer t1_j275pzc wrote

Rhynhart is the way


BUrower t1_j29m9q1 wrote

I'd be happy with her or Domb. Anyone who supports building this city up.


JesusOfBeer t1_j29q0zo wrote

Domb is a no-go


BUrower t1_j2ekqxr wrote

I'm curious to know why you feel that way


JesusOfBeer t1_j2erawh wrote

He’s a real estate mogul with a mouth… that’s it.

Rhynhart has actually gone to work while Domb just speaks loudly


_token_black t1_j2b9kkc wrote

>Gyms statement just seems like a buzz word list without substance.

her whole political career is buzz words


_crapitalism t1_j26wrf9 wrote

idk, I felt like Gym's answer was fine. she seemed to me to be saying that we should curb displacement while allowing in new residents to greeting neighborhoods, and creating more affordable housing tax incentives for developers. all that sounds good to me. she has also been a close ally with Jamie Gauthier on the council, and while Gauthier has done some housing things I disagree with, it's clear to me that she is willing to invest and build infrastructure in working class neighborhoods in her district, unlike most other councilmembers in districts with high poverty areas.


An_emperor_penguin t1_j2707l3 wrote

Gauthier has NIMBY'd tons of affordable units in her district and tried to illegally block the Ucity townhome redevelopment instead of actually help the residents. She even helped turn 70 affordable units into a parking lot at 5200 Warrington as she knew the Ucity news about 70 units being lost was about to be announced publicly. She is almost as bad as Clarke and being a "close ally" with her is a big red flag on housing.

Gym was just talking about tax credits and getting everyone to work together for "equity" which is fine I guess, but what does that mean in practice?


_crapitalism t1_j274sw8 wrote

pretty sure the 5200 Warrington development came to be the way it is after RCO negations, and Gauthier put out a statement saying that she was somewhat disappointed that's what it took to build more housing. could be wrong, but thats my memory of it. Gauthier also hasn't been the chronic downzoning, anti-septa, anti-bike, anti-vision zero tyrant that Clarke or Johnson have been, and has been busy getting the protected bike lanes on chestnut all the way through Cobbs creek, and is trying to get a much needed similar one on walnut. she's supported trolley modernization, and she's consistently been one of the better councilmembers on vision zero. that's infrastructure and investment in impoverished communities, and it's what's separates her from the likes of a lot of the rest of the council, and why I'd be happy to have a mayor in her faction.


An_emperor_penguin t1_j27g3au wrote

>Gauthier put out a statement saying that she was somewhat disappointed that's what it took to build more housing

But that's "what it took" because she didn't back the housing! If she told the developer to ignore the NIMBYs that show up to literally everything (to complain about parking) then they could have done that, but she didn't. And in other instances like 48th and Chester (the "poop" building) she explicitly asked the ZBA to deny a variance for affordable apartments so the developers would build luxury townhomes instead.

I do agree that she's been fairly good on non housing issues


TreeMac12 t1_j28gkhx wrote

Nobody really cares about gentrification or eviction remediation. The real questions we want answered are how will you guarantee weekly trash pickup and guarantee that someone will come when we call 911?


Jlaybythebay t1_j28k3a2 wrote

Gentrification is good. Change is good. Being complacent does nothing for the city. People only think about displacement but don’t see the greater good that comes


BUrower t1_j29mp06 wrote

Displacement happens as a result of not building enough housing units. That can be fixed but it would require upzoning, ending councilmatic prerogative, ending parking minimums, increasing inclusionary height bonuses, getting serious about transit oriented development, making it easier to build "missing middle" housing, etc.


randompittuser t1_j26xbkw wrote

There aren’t solutions to gentrification because it’s not a real thing.


Unfamiliar_Word t1_j26zzj4 wrote

It's very taboo in certain circles to think that, but I increasingly think that it's close to true or that worrying about gentrification elevates a few particular interests over the greater interest of the city, including those who might be commonly considered the victims of gentrification.


HoagiesDad t1_j271jn5 wrote

I’m 100% for improving neighborhoods along the subway corridors. I know of many younger people who have chosen to purchase homes in Kensington because it’s affordable. Frankford has an even better chance of becoming a really nice part of the city but it needs solid investment. That’s only going to come from change through redevelopment. Septa is currently working with the Frankford CDC to purchase the commercial properties across from the terminal. Everything will be raised for a new mixed development of apartments and commercial. I’m excited about redevelopment because it helps end the decades of racial segregation. Mixed neighborhoods should be the goal.


Ams12345678 t1_j2dtw0e wrote

I have a hard time believing Frankford will ever be “nice.”


HoagiesDad t1_j2eebma wrote

You obviously don’t know much about the area then. The western side of Frankford (Northwood) is one of the more beautiful areas of the city. It’s already nice.


JesusOfBeer t1_j276c6a wrote

Who wants that as the “goal”?


HoagiesDad t1_j277i4t wrote

Anyone who seriously wants to see racism fade away.


JesusOfBeer t1_j28phgy wrote

Just asking… does everyone want mixed neighborhoods or just white people to make themselves feel better in a racist society?


JesusOfBeer t1_j275frn wrote

Rebecca Rhynhart is the way…


_token_black t1_j2bamx8 wrote

A real candidate needs to figure out a middle ground between zero gentrification and constantly pricier $2k+ apartments sprouting up. Like somebody else said, the city needs to figure out how to incentivize developers to not just build luxury bullshit to attract displaced NYC/DC residents.

Figuring out how to keep more middle class college grads in the city should be important, not telling them that "yeah these 10 areas are shitty now and will remain shitty", which basically tells them to take their family building elsewhere, which they do. Funny how so many Temple grads end up starting families... in the suburbs.


OfferCorrect278 t1_j2dfinr wrote

Gentrification on its own isn’t a bad word. It’s like people want areas to remain in a shit cycle. Stop complaining, maybe if you had some trees and picked up the trash you wouldn’t be on your way out.


Character_Macaron133 t1_j2669ks wrote

Most gentrification in Philly is just whitewashing


Dryheavemorning t1_j26746c wrote

Ironic comment coming from someone who lives in what used to be a nearly all white neighborhood that's been diversified through new development.


Character_Macaron133 t1_j269vy3 wrote

Also Frankford Ave is not all of fishtown…the neighborhood east of the street has still an original feel even as money is being poured in


Indiana_Jawnz t1_j2b59da wrote

It really does not feel close to what it felt like even in the early 2000s.


Character_Macaron133 t1_j269p3b wrote

Ironic considering the inquirer did a study and showed that fairmount went from predominantly African American to nearly completely white


NonIdentifiableUser t1_j26pija wrote

Dude Fairmount has been around in one form or another since the earliest days of the city. It only became predominantly black in the mid-20th century. Demographics tend to be fluid and change over time, specific groups don’t get to dictate that they are the rightful residents of a specific area.


Character_Macaron133 t1_j26qujt wrote

The inquirer even called the change in the neighborhood a whitewashing versus gentrification


GooFoYouPal t1_j26x17w wrote

My family has lived in Fairmount since the 40s. It was Irish, Eastern European, and Puerto Rican.


TreeMac12 t1_j28qk0d wrote

If everyone was entitled to subsidized housing based on where their family once lived, everyone in South Jersey and Delco with an Italian grandmother would get a free house in South Philly.


Indiana_Jawnz t1_j2b528m wrote

Cool, what were the demographics in 1920?

Neighborhoods change.