Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ColdJay64 t1_izfmf4m wrote

Point Breeze would already be on the level of East Passyunk if it weren’t for Kenyatta Johnson

72

__init__RedditUser t1_izfr72o wrote

Why?

9

Away_Swimming_5757 t1_izfssf5 wrote

He is anti-development. Refuses to engage in good faith about zoning changes. Plays into the "gentrificaiton!!! all the whites are going to steal from the blacks and erase CULTURE!" that stiffles development from the never-satisified and corrupt RCOs that coordinate with him and appeal and delay development proposals. Look at Washington Ave east vs Wasginton Ave west and the sentiment/ vibe of how the discussions are facilitated.

71

NonIdentifiableUser t1_izg1ubj wrote

Yep. The end result is one thing - you can disagree on what the best configuration is (though one is clearly preferable in every way exact for automobile throughout), but the way KJ handled the whole thing was so slimy. It’s pretty much his MO, hence the federal corruption trial.

11

Barmelo_Xanthony t1_izh0yr8 wrote

And then she complains about having to move to one of the less developed neighborhoods in the article LOL. It’s like a parody but actually sad because these are the people voting against helping their own neighborhoods. Places are expensive because people want to live there and cheap because people don’t.

7

Away_Swimming_5757 t1_izha0tk wrote

In the article is says she was living in the house her grandmother passed down to her mother, who then passed it down to her. Is that implying she sold her house in Point Breeze to go rent in Oxford Circle?

3

shark_skin_suit t1_izgjw7j wrote

well, if black people are not involved in development in an equitable way, why open the flood gates to venture capitalists to own half the city?

−7

Barmelo_Xanthony t1_izh2te8 wrote

First off just remove black people from the sentence and replace it with the long time residents. They are not being forced out because they are black so acting like that is a valid argument is disingenuous at best. Maybe 60 years ago but the girl who inherited a home in a great area is not a victim.

Now that we peeled that off - the long term residents are absolutely benefiting because a) their home prices are going up b) the area is becoming safer and c) businesses create opportunity to get better jobs than if they were stuck in a war zone looking area.

Next, let’s change the venture capitalists to a word like investor because for some reason you act like a venture capitalist is an evil word. Investors fund people who wouldn’t be able to otherwise afford it to start their business. Without these kinds of investors the only person who can start a business is someone already wealthy. So the investors give out loans because the area is improving and they think they will make a profit.

The business owners receiving the loans get a chance to make their dreams come true and you start to see small stores and resteraunts flourish. Better businesses mean more people want to go there and live there which means the price will go up because we don’t build enough. So people that are struggling decide to sell their home, not forced out of it, and move back to an area similar to where they started.

The opportunities were there and even if they couldn’t take advantage they likely still made a killing on their home value. Everyone is better off except for the selfish people who wanted the area to stay shitty because they wanted to stay there for cheap.

If you want more black people to be successful in these scenarios encourage them to be the ones who start the small shops and stores when things start getting better. Teach them that investors can help them and they’re not evil all the time. People like Kevin Hart that actually do this in poor neighborhoods are hero’s and people like you are helping ruin their futures.

15

AbsentEmpire t1_izgnfg6 wrote

Because the venture capital is coming either way, right now the main person benefiting from it is Johnson, and only Johnson.

11

ifthereisnomirror t1_izfutpg wrote

Because he’s not engaging with pricing his constituency out of their homes.

−17

ColdJay64 t1_izfzn52 wrote

That's why he blocked the entire Washington Ave. safety improvement plan for his half?

That's why he has blocked the sales of vacant lots to developers, wanting to leave them vacant?

That's why anyone who wants to develop on Point Breeze Ave. has to bribe him for a zoning variance? Why do you think that area is so dead/rundown despite all the new residents in the neighborhood?

The neighborhood could be far more vibrant and safe if he cared about anything beyond keeping himself in office, which he doesn't. Also evidenced by him previously being on trial for corruption.

Johnson is the epitome of what's wrong with Philadelphia leadership.

Edit: fixed typo

32

ifthereisnomirror t1_izg39d6 wrote

I mean yes it is part of why he did a lot of those things?

Those sorts of improvements lead to an increase in property values which lead to increased costs of living for the people he represents. If those people stop living there he is less likely to get elected.

I’m not saying I agree with his policies.

I think there’s plenty of bad leadership here in the city, it’s unfair to give that title to Johnson so easily.

−22

-Ch4s3- t1_izg9n8q wrote

Blocking improvements to amenities to keep down home prices is kind of perverse isn’t it? Surely his constituents deserve to benefit from the growing wealth of the city.

How does this even stop displacement? Won’t new and wealthier people eventually start buying up the limited housing stock in the neighborhood if nothing changes?

16

ifthereisnomirror t1_izgb94s wrote

People often don’t act in their own best interest.

A lot of the sentiment that I’ve encountered living in Johnson’s district for the past few decades is that people want things to stay the way that they are.

I don’t think it’s stopping change or displacement in the area, it’s inevitable.

Eventually a reasonable person will run and take the seat from him, it just hasn’t happened yet.

−3

-Ch4s3- t1_izgbqup wrote

I totally get the impulse to keep things the same, but it just isn’t realistic and cities have never stayed the same over decades. It’s a real failure of politicians to promise that they can freeze a neighborhood in amber.

It’s sad to me because space could be carved out to help people stay and to give them better city services while allowing the change to happen.

8

ifthereisnomirror t1_izgei2i wrote

Totally. If only we could get more honest politicians.

Maybe. Services cost money.

2

-Ch4s3- t1_izgf11y wrote

For sure, but a little population growth can generate a lot of revenue. The next few years might be tough but investments need to be long term in focus.

3

ColdJay64 t1_izgarh2 wrote

We live in the poorest big city in America. Believe it or not, preventing safety improvements to roads, keeping amenities out of neighborhoods, limiting the tax base, etc. won't help the current residents with anything except keeping them in poverty. Is that really the best outcome?

I don't know all the answers, but keeping an area an objectively worse place to live for everyone, just to keep property values down, isn't it.

There is definitely plenty of bad leadership. I'm saying he's exemplary of everything that's wrong with it - corrupt, self-serving, shortsighted, misguided, etc.

8

AbsentEmpire t1_izgwdw8 wrote

Keeping the place deprived of amenities isn't keeping property values down either, because at its core Point Breeze is a transit accessible neighborhood to Center City, and Philly overall has a housing shortage in in demand locations, hense what's driving Point Breeze.

3

geriatric_tatertot t1_izh0ydo wrote

But he is. By blocking new development he put a premium on the existing housing. So older folks sell and move away and the younger folks that grew up in the neighborhood are priced out. No apartments or anything that they could rent or buy for a reasonable price. In the 10 years I rented I was pushed further south in his district, from South St. to Christian to Federal and finally Mifflin before buying a house on the southwest side of Passyunk. My friends who still rent can’t find a 1br apartment and are stuck renting houses w/roommates they don’t really want to have at 40 years old. Allowing new development and multifamily housing would alleviate a lot of the issues. Theres more than enough room for everyone, but not if only single family housing is allowed.

9

AbsentEmpire t1_izh5fvx wrote

Preach!

If duplexes, triplexes, and 5 over 1s, were allowed by default in the zoning code there would be no affordability problem anywhere in the city.

3

thecoffeecake1 t1_izjpkj2 wrote

If you're dumb enough to believe supply and demand is the primary driver of property value, then yea maybe.

2

Pantone802 t1_izfw5yv wrote

1000%. I’ll also add Albert Littlepage

8

SaltPepperKetchup215 t1_izg1zwb wrote

Whenever that man talks I always think about the Billy Madison scene when during the game show the host makes the argument that we’re all a bit dumber for hearing it

5

AbsentEmpire t1_izgnrpc wrote

That man is so fucking dumb, I don't understand how manages to get around in life.

3

LFKhael t1_izf1ev2 wrote

Why are all the charts lately impossible to fucking read for the colorblind?

+10k/20k and -500/-11k might as well be the same color.

37

Barmelo_Xanthony t1_izh3bsz wrote

Because they’re probably not trained analyst who know what their doing with the data and know to use contrasting colors. You can tell because the first thing they teach you is that correlation does not equal causation. But when you have a narrative to push you can find whatever you want to make it fit.

9

LFKhael t1_izh3qsj wrote

Give me my greyscale textures back from when nobody had color printers, dangit.

4

Barmelo_Xanthony t1_izh647t wrote

https://i.imgur.com/dinyxar.jpg

This might help. Hold on to your seat though because you’re not gonna believe that center city (you know, where all the jobs are) increased in wealth more than North Philly.

So as a journalist would you discuss the reasons why their are more higher paying jobs in business districts than in areas that have been flooded with violence. Would it make sense that the few jobs in this area got even worse because nobody wants to go there let alone shop there? And maybe the lawyer on market street doesn’t have the same issue?

Mind you - I didn’t mention race once there. Once you start grouping people together then the logical discussion is over.

5

LFKhael t1_izh7gsq wrote

Oh, I'm gonna go from dragging one stat on this chart down to pulling it up.

2

Chimpskibot t1_izfk2si wrote

Yesterday was the best time to plan, but now will have to do! The city really needs to upzone Kensington and promote greater densification. Especially westward from Front St to American St.

28

Barmelo_Xanthony t1_izh4ekd wrote

I’m guessing you mean you want them building apartments right? Cause that’s the right idea but half the city would have a panic attack if you knocked down 10 of their precious row homes to build a 50 unit apartment. Literally just happened in west Philly and this sub was mostly with the protestors.

If you want denser housing that means we need to say fuck single family row homes. Sorry, the look cool when taken care of but they’re impractical and overpriced.

2

Dryheavemorning OP t1_izh7v93 wrote

The area he's talking about has plenty of empty lots and abandoned industrial buildings so no need to destroy anything. It's also full of apartment construction on those empty lots and industrial buildings.

10

Barmelo_Xanthony t1_izh872b wrote

Wow awesome link thank you. Didn’t realize that - so we are actually trying. It’s just a little harder to actually build things than ti say we should build them.

2

Dryheavemorning OP t1_izh8unc wrote

It's actually going up in the neighborhood, I'm in South Kensington and there's at least 500 units under construction within 2 blocks of me, way more in the entire neighborhood. It's like a whole new City.

6

markskull t1_iziz5uc wrote

Or, and hear me out... you DON'T tear down the single family row homes and instead bring back mixed-zoning use instead.

1

thecoffeecake1 t1_izjoygf wrote

Right, so let's raze half the city and replace it with higher density new construction, so the entire landscape of the city is a rolling wave of shitty new plastic facaded apartments and condos.

You developer mouthpieces don't give a shit about Philadelphia or the things that make it unique and give these neighborhoods the value you people exploit. You think anyone is going to want to move into any of these neighborhoods if the rowhomes are gone?

I hope this sub is still around when this housing bubble bursts and all these hideous drywall and plastic condos are worthless and literally crumbling to the ground.

The most disturbing and perverse thing about this comment though is that people are seemingly returning to this utility + profit > everything urban design mentality. It's what developers want the public to believe, so that they're given a greenlight to do essentially to whatever they want to the landscape of our cities. They managed to push the public narrative in this direction in the middle part of the 20th century, and they gutted every single city in North America for highways that encouraged more auto travel, brutalist offices and apartments, public housing projects that worsened conditions for the city's impoverished and are mostly long demolished. And what happened? Cities collapsed and fell into decades-long depressions, which were only reversed when people started moving into older neighborhoods that maintained long term value.

It's a really sick thing this person here is saying.

−3

Dryheavemorning OP t1_izjtd44 wrote

This is pretty ironic coming from someone with "West Poplar" in their flair. Most of that neighborhood is a monument to the failures of government urban planning and housing policy in the late 20th Century. Turns out sticking suburban style homes in what should be a dense urban neighborhood doesn't solve all the ills of poverty. The apartment buildings and rowhomes developers are putting up now look awesome compared to the garbage projects in West Poplar.

3

thecoffeecake1 t1_izjv5ih wrote

Do you think I designed them? I don't get your point.

1

Dryheavemorning OP t1_izk6ih0 wrote

My point is you're lamenting the potential destruction of existing homes for new dense development when you live in a neighborhood that would be massively improved by demolishing what is currently there for new dense construction.

You're also conflating the anti-urban actions of the government in the 20th Century with private developers that are responding to market demand, they're very dissimilar.

6

thecoffeecake1 t1_j03icto wrote

There's so much wrong with what you're saying that I hardly know where to begin.

First of all, no, West Poplar would not be "massively improved" by destroying the neighborhood for denser development. No one who lives in this neighborhood - neither transplants nor locals who have been here for generations - wants to live in a jungle full of condos. I've lived here for a decade, and I moved here and stayed here because I love this area the way it is. Take your opinions about a place you don't live somewhere else - you clearly know very little about this neighborhood or the people who live here.

I don't entirely disagree that how Richard Allen was redesigned wasn't great, but what's your solution? Evict an entire community that's been there for almost a century for more tacky and poorly constructed condo buildings? Revert back to high rise public housing? You obviously don't understand the issue very well. And by the way, any problem you perceive with the development of the area stems from an urban renewal project that did exactly what you're suggesting back in the 30's - a poor neighborhood was seized by the city, its residents evicted, and their homes replaced by higher density development.

No, what happened to our cities in the 20th century and what's happening now are not dissimilar at all. Replace the actors and change some of the language, and it's fundamentally the same thing. Our neighborhoods are being gutted and altered for the benefit and profit of people with a lot of capital who don't live in them.

Love the "responding to demand" myth though, that's always a good one. No one responds to demand, they respond to profitability. There's very little demand to turn Kensington into a future condominium graveyard, but there's money to be made by developing the area and inducing that demand (an important concept I'm sure you learned in business school - whoever you're parroting certainly did at least). There's much more demand to not tear these neighborhoods apart block by block, but there's much less money to be made leaving places alone and maintaining them as they are.

When land in the suburbs was cheap and developing it became practical, all kinds of accommodations were made for developers to help attract people out to them. When that market saturated, they did the same thing to get people back into the city after the urban housing market had collapsed and it was profitable and expedient to do that.

And besides, weren't governments just responding to the demand for highways that increased car usage created? When the government does it, it's anti-urban action, but when a private developer stands to make money tearing up the fabric of our communities, it's just responding to demand right?

0

Dryheavemorning OP t1_j06ebg0 wrote

If you "love" the suburban style projects and trashnados of West Poplar I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on urban planning . The inefficient use of space there will eventually be corrected like every other Center City adjacent neighborhood. There's already big apartment developments in Poplar and a ton of development along North Broad which will make West Poplar more attractive and valuable enough to densely develop. The projects there have and will hold it back some but they'll be built around like Queen Village or Nolibs and will eventually be demoed or converted. They won't be rebuilt as dense or moved, Section 8 vouchers are a much better solution than concentrating poverty in projects.

>Love the "responding to demand" myth though, that's always a good one. No one responds to demand, they respond to profitability. There's very little demand to turn Kensington into a future condominium graveyard

What's that you said about opinions about places you don't live? I'm in South Kensington and there is massive demand to live here near public transit, world class restaurants and a booming arts scene. And they're building densely for that demand because our neighborhood isn't full of suburban project NIMBYs concerned about keeping their neighborhood poor and shitty.

1

thecoffeecake1 t1_j0ad9w0 wrote

Lol poor and shitty, spoken like someone who has a firm understanding of the American inner city and plenty of respect for our communities and the people in them.

Fuck off.

0

Dryheavemorning OP t1_j0ba2h5 wrote

Lol, "inner city," is just another term for poor and shitty. No one calls Fairmount or Nolibs the inner city despite a similar geographic location.

0

thecoffeecake1 t1_j0cbtej wrote

No it's not, you're clearly a dumbass with very little academic or real world exposure to anything you're trying to lecture people about.

0

Dryheavemorning OP t1_j0cpggp wrote

What is your definition of "inner city" then if you're such an expert? Why is "inner city" culture something we want to sustain when it never refers to a prosperous and safe neighborhood? I focused on housing policy during law school, your expertise seems to be Darrell Clarke style NIMBYism.

0

thecoffeecake1 t1_j0cr3wf wrote

Resorting to waving your diploma around is a pretty pathetic move, but I have an urban studies degree tough guy.

0

Dryheavemorning OP t1_j0cs7k2 wrote

So you claimed I had no academic experience, I gave it to you, and I'm the one waving a diploma around? Fucking moronic. So you have no alternative definition of "inner city" or any reason why it's worth preserving? Super strong case for keeping a neighborhood of suburban style projects immediately adjacent to Center City.

0

thecoffeecake1 t1_j0cvy9n wrote

Ok, let's go back to that.

First of all, I agreed with you that what they did with Richard Allen wasn't ideal. But do you know what was there before, or what the area was like before they redeveloped it? The outcome wasn't great, but I understand why they tried it out - and it's certainly s lot better than it was in the 80's and 90's.

It's also not the worst thing that could be there. It's not the end of the world that there are twins with backyards. But it's not my community. I don't live in Richard Allen, and whatever they do or don't do with it should be up to the families that have been there for, in some cases, generations. Your suggestion of evicting an entire community's worth of people so they can build condos and flood the area with people from everywhere else is a terrible one, that benefits only a handful of people - none of whom currently live here or have a vested interest in the neighborhood.

I also don't disagree that public housing projects are a bad solution to a major problem - but evicting Richard Allen and throwing thousands of people's lives into chaos isn't the solution, and it won't help create a better one. It just moves the problem somewhere else.

You're a lawyer, go ahead and reform public housing, figure out how to integrate better section 8 policies, push for PHA to buy and maintain individual housing units & scattered sites instead of constructing projects, and then we can have a conversation about what replaces Richard Allen, and the Spring Garden Apartments, Harrison, etc.

But any redevelopment that happens in this neighborhood, I won't be supporting anything that's higher density than what exists now. The character of the neighborhood has always been lower density row housing. If I wanted to be surrounded by tacky, high density condo buildings, I wouldn't live here. That's not what this neighborhood is, and no one here wants to see it torn apart.

If there's more demand than there is housing, too fucking bad. Find a different neighborhood to live in. There are plenty.

0

Electr_O_Purist t1_izg25ml wrote

For Point Breeze, even becoming far wealthier is still not to the level many other areas would call “wealthy.”

24

Barmelo_Xanthony t1_izh06wn wrote

The article tries to make me feel bad about the girl who inherited a home in a booming part of the city because prices went up as it got nicer.

The race part is completely irrelevant because she is the one who is privileged not the people who wanted to buy a house with their hard earned money. If I inherited a house that could go for mid 6 figures atleast because of that location I would be MUCH better off than I am now with my pretty decent job but paying to live.

They took a story about an entitled girl (who was handed something a lot of us will never be able to afford) complaining about inflation. If anything the one complaining about white people moving into her neighborhood is a racist.

18

Lubbles t1_izfiu87 wrote

Yes, everybody is aware

17

pgrudo01 t1_izia3gf wrote

I am from the NE and I found out real quick that Point Breeze is one of the last places I want to deliver food this goes for the daytime and especially at night. So many shootings I see in that area it’s ridiculous. I think Fishtown is much safer imo. I would guess that it’s South Philly’s hot spot for that stuff. I might be wrong.

7

CroatianSensation79 t1_izjav8m wrote

Right? I follow the Point Breeze page and I always see comments about shootings. I’m in Port Richmond and would rather be in PR than PB.

3

SWHBKL t1_izhpngy wrote

That’s called gentrification

1

73Wolfie t1_izjj8rv wrote

the money we waste on census on things anybody could tell you regarding gentrification areas

0

[deleted] t1_izf4jfj wrote

[deleted]

−5

BUrower t1_izfkmis wrote

If we allow enough housing to be developed, your rent won't go up. If we gatekeep neighborhoods and city council continues to downzone, rents will continue to rise as demand outpaces supply.

30

dotcom-jillionaire t1_izfz24e wrote

this is what happens when people from nyc and la move to philly

−20

Barmelo_Xanthony t1_izh7920 wrote

Oh god the horror the neighborhoods got wealthier. New Yorkers were def moving into shitty areas driving prices up and not just moving there after the areas already became attraction spots.

Or…the area gets gentirified first then wealthy people move in. But then that would mean some Philadelphians actually wanted these safe areas with lots to do. Hard concept to grasp I know but if you want a cheap home you can live in central PA or West Virginia. If it’s all about price why aren’t these areas getting flooded with people?

15

Fly__Eagles__Fly t1_izixr2z wrote

My friend took a gamble and moved into one of the first homes that were renovated in Point Breeze in the early 2010's. The townhome was nice but the neighborhood was sketchy. I think he bought it for $275k and sold for $450k 5 or 6 years later once the 'kill the gentrifiers' signs stopped getting posted all over the place.

5

passing-stranger t1_iziwqv9 wrote

Yeah, if you can hardly afford rent in a philly row home then just pack up your stuff and move to central PA or another state! Sure, it's harder to find affordable rent or a job or roommates or public transportation outside of a city and people living paycheck to paycheck can't actually afford to simply move to another state but I'll definitely keep that in mind. Gentrification is too hard of a concept to grasp to grasp despite us watching it play out in real time, good thing we have people like you to explain.

Hope all the "I'm not rich, I'm just comfortable!" people enjoy doing real, physically demanding work for joke wages because there won't be any attractions left when the workers get priced out of the city. Gonna see a lot more business owner tears and print outs about how no one wants to work

−5

MildTile t1_izfzktc wrote

The term is gentrification

−28

Dryheavemorning OP t1_izg08e5 wrote

That term is way more ambiguous and loaded than the accurate title.

25

MildTile t1_izg0pwi wrote

You prefer we pushed all the non white actual Philadelphians out of the area.. then ripped all the old houses down to build super low quality expensive townhouses?

−32

Bartleby_TheScrivene t1_izgfomf wrote

You prefer we trap Black families into segregated little neighborhoods where property values never increase.

18

jersey_girl660 t1_izgrteh wrote

Gentrification doesn’t fix that either. They end up not being able to afford the neighborhood and the cycle repeats when they move into another impoverished/ low income/ working class neighborhood.

In order to not have this happen gentrification has to be done very carefully. And it’s often not done that way in the name of $$$$

−7

MildTile t1_izgpwbt wrote

Nice try. No I prefer you don’t push them completely out because you tear down 4 40k houses and build 8 100+k condos and price out the people that have lived there for decades.

−10

Bartleby_TheScrivene t1_izgq2oo wrote

I wasn't asking you a question. I was stating what your choice will do.

For the record, anyone that has lived there "for decades" owns the house. Full stop. They would be thrilled for their property value to suddenly triple or quadruple, especially if the kids have moved on. It would allow them to sell a home they've likely had little money to renovate or repair for far above market price and move somewhere equally affordable as before while pocketing some change, if they want to.

Nobody buys a house, or lives in a house for decades, and wants to sell it for the same they paid 20 years ago.

7

passing-stranger t1_izixb06 wrote

This is not true. There are many families who want to stay in their homes and neighborhoods but can't keep up with rising taxes as their property value increases. In addition to higher cost of living in general when many members of the working class don't even get a 3% wage increase annually.

Maybe you should spend less time dreaming up ways to gentrify the neighborhood and more time talking to real people who live here and have for years.

−5

Bartleby_TheScrivene t1_iziytil wrote

We're talking about houses that 20 years ago, were worth 40k and had zero property tax, turning into teardown lots worth 160 or 200k with a property tax of $1000 a year. Less than $100 a month.

People complaining about not being able to afford property tax are full of it.

0

passing-stranger t1_izizxca wrote

Dude, just say you're too privileged to understand and move on. You've been in the area for a minute and you think you know what it needs? Like I said, you'd be better off actually listening to neighbors who are dealing with this but with that attitude I can see why they wouldn't want to chat. Have a good one

−2

Bartleby_TheScrivene t1_izj15hh wrote

Lol fuck off. You're the one who thinks minorities are too dumb and too poor to afford property tax increases.

2

passing-stranger t1_izj1lh9 wrote

I didn't say a single thing about "minorities" or their intelligence. You're telling on yourself. Have a good one

0

jersey_girl660 t1_izgryrq wrote

With rising property values comes rising tax bills as well as a higher COL.

That’s why people are pushed out from gentrification. If you are already struggling to pay the bills a rising tax bill along with higher food costs, gas costs, utilities, cars, etc can easily price someone out.

−6

Away_Swimming_5757 t1_izhavrj wrote

Point Breeze property taxes have gone from $600 up to $3,000. That's a reasonable price after being kept low for decades.

10

AbsentEmpire t1_izgwow0 wrote

Just keep ignoring that Philly property taxes are way lower than they should be and weighted to the value of the structure not the land.

4

jersey_girl660 t1_izgxe1k wrote

Yeah you’re right the original inhabitants of fish town can all still afford to live there…. Please

−5

Away_Swimming_5757 t1_izhazmd wrote

Fishtown is full of old timers in paid off houses. They can afford to remain there and will continue to.

5

AbsentEmpire t1_izgyafn wrote

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.

2

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

−4

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.

https://whyy.org/articles/philly-federal-reserve-study-challenges-conventional-wisdom-on-gentrification/

3

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.

−2

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.

1

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.

0

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.

1

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”

−1

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.

3

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.

−3

AbsentEmpire t1_izgzthy wrote

>I literally took a class on it.

Oh well I guess that disproves the Federal Reserves multiple studies on it.

3

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 🎉

0

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.”

2

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 😅

−3

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).

2

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.

1

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.

−2

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 :)

3

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.

2

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.

2

ColdJay64 t1_izg3hjd wrote

Philly has plenty of room to grow before that happens. After another 400k people move here you may have a point.

12

AbsentEmpire t1_izgo60w wrote

You're right it's far better that we concentrate non white people into poor neighborhoods with dilapidated housing, and by law block any investment into them.

That's worked out so well in the past.

8

jersey_girl660 t1_izgs0tt wrote

Do you realize that’s often the end result when gentrification is unchecked?

−2

AbsentEmpire t1_izgujhi wrote

Do you realize that gentrification is only possible with exclusionary zoning?

5

jersey_girl660 t1_izgvry0 wrote

What is your point?

0

AbsentEmpire t1_izh25qb wrote

That zoning causes gentrification, whats yours?

4

jersey_girl660 t1_izh29ii wrote

My point has nothing to do with zoning and gentrification is a cause of supply and demand so I’m not convinced it wouldn’t exist without zoning. Only so much land to go around

0

AbsentEmpire t1_izhamzg wrote

We could fit the entire population of Earth into Texas and everyone would have 1000sqft of space. Philadelphia used to have over 2 million people living in it, and using less total land area than the current 1.6 million occupies.

We are nowhere near running out of land space in this city, try again.

2

MildTile t1_izgq2ax wrote

Don’t act like any of this is to help any of the none white people out. We all know who is purchasing and living in these condos and it’s sure as hell not the people that lived in those neighborhoods before.

−3

AbsentEmpire t1_izgue98 wrote

Oh fucking please, who do think are the people selling thier house for record amounts of money? No one is being forced out of Point Breeze, but do go on about how black people shouldn't be allowed to profit off their land because racial mixing is bad.

Also tell me you don't live in Point Breeze without saying it. The neighborhood is overwhelmingly single family housing, not condos, there are in fact very few condos available in Point Breeze, and 99% of construction has been empty lot infill with single family housing, structurally unstable house replacement, and existing homes getting full renovations. Fuck out of here with this bullshit.

12

[deleted] t1_izil3q7 wrote

[removed]

0

AbsentEmpire t1_izixvnc wrote

I was born in Philly, have lived here longer than you've likely been alive, and bought my house over a decade ago. But thanks for clarifying that you're some suburban transplant with a chip on the shoulder over not being able to make it in the city, doesn't know shit about Point Breeze, and wants to return to days of redlining.

7

MildTile t1_izj363x wrote

Oh the old man go to. Lol probably calls into WIP on a daily basis bitching about hockey lol

2

filladellfea t1_izhgt3e wrote

if that's your definition, then i assume you only mean point breeze? because fishtown was mostly white before it started its revitalization.

8

MildTile t1_izil7kt wrote

Fishtown is what it is. But go anywhere around it and this is exactly what’s happening.

−3

Barmelo_Xanthony t1_izh7yur wrote

Nobody pushed all the non whites out. They left because they cannot afford it. So maybe let’s help these communities build up and earn higher paying jobs or we can blame the people that moved in once it was nice. But the first one takes effort so let’s blame an entire race that just wanted to move to a cool area.

Yes, you are a racist by saying white people shouldn’t be able to move into your town.

6

MildTile t1_izikzoq wrote

Lol and it’s not racist to come in and price others out?

1