AbsentEmpire t1_izgyafn wrote
Reply to comment by jersey_girl660 in Fishtown, Point Breeze have become far wealthier in the last 10 years and other new Census findings by Dryheavemorning
The Lenape?
They left for very different reasons than the bullshit you're trying to imply.
But seriously you're right, there is not one single person living in Fishtown today who was there 20 years ago, not a single person. They all had thier houses seized from them and didn't sell them for record amounts of money and moved somewhere they'd rather be.
jersey_girl660 t1_izgydxd wrote
It wasn’t called fish town when they were living there.
Y’all wanna keep arguing about something that’s known to happen with gentrification be my guest. Wouldn’t be the first time y’all try to go with what feels right vs what evidence shows
AbsentEmpire t1_izgzcrp wrote
What fucking evidence, you've shown none other than your poorly conceived notion of gentrification, which you're really just using as a substitute for change is bad.
You're over here acting like this is fucking San Francisco, when the evidence shows what you claim literally isn't happening.
jersey_girl660 t1_izgzniz wrote
“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 what I’m saying . You literally just proved my point bud.
AbsentEmpire t1_izh04wx wrote
>In addition, the researchers found, many low-income “original residents” remained in the neighborhood and benefited from the changing characteristics of the community. Perhaps obviously, low-income homeowners experience significant increases in their home values, while Reed and Brummet found that children from low-income households were more likely to go to college if they lived in gentrifying neighborhoods.
>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.
Way to ignore the rest of the article bud, which disproves your notions.
>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 neighborhood
And the first part of the paragraph you quoted. Which further undermines your position.
jersey_girl660 t1_izh0c4m wrote
No it doesn’t. I never once stated that no residents stayed behind. Again the quote I provided you literally says most are replaced.
Just because a small amount stay doesn’t disprove what I’m saying… at all.
“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”
I never once stated every single resident get replaced. Most do. Gentrification has both pros and cons which is why it has to be done right.
Also if you had asked me I would’ve told you there are benefits for those that are able to stay in the neighborhood…:. But you didn’t even bother.
AbsentEmpire t1_izh2r6w wrote
>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
>“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.”
They're not being displaced if the the change reflects normal population churn, they being excluded by lack of affordable options due to zone restrictions, there is a big fucking difference in the implication.
jersey_girl660 t1_izh3eqn wrote
They are being displaced. It doesn’t matter if it’s equal to normal levels of population change. That’s not the issue.
It’s being replaced by higher income residents and then having to move to an area with similar issues as the old one… and not being able to benefit from the positive changes to the neighborhood as a result of being displaced
Displaced : cause (something) to move from its proper or usual place.
They are literally being displaced.
“The Fair Housing Act can be used as litigation against gentrification because the urban development process of higher-income individuals into lower-income neighborhoods leads to displacement”
AbsentEmpire t1_izh7ovu wrote
>displaced; displacing; displaces
>transitive verb >1a: to remove from the usual or proper place >specifically : to expel or force to flee from home or homeland
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/displace
>that found that demographic change in gentrifying neighborhoods was a result of typical levels of population churn in lower-income neighborhood
No one is being expelled, or otherwise forced to flee a neighborhood because higher income people moved in, they are being excluded from continuing to move in due to lack of affordable options caused by exclusionary zoning policy.
Again there is a big difference in the implications between being displaced and being excluded. You should demand a refund from your school.
jersey_girl660 t1_izgzimw wrote
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