Gentrification? Good? Bad?

[mjkuhns]

Very well, if it's a free-for-all, I will present my modest proposal for what it's worth.

I believe that the controversy over gentrification (or what I perceive "gentrification" to mean, at any rate) ultimately results from two incompatible beliefs about what housing is for.

Various authors I have read on this subject frame it as a conflict between market processes and restrictive zoning. Absent tight limits on new building, they argue, it would not matter if e.g. low-income regions of San Francisco become popular with affluent techies, because developers would simply add housing until all budgets are accommodated. Even though the entire city is "built up," it should be possible to meet any realistic demand by redeveloping properties here and there, and increasing overall density. Except that cities like San Francisco prevent this through restrictive zoning.

This argument invariably leads off into all kinds of side controversies. But I believe that the whole argument, itself, misses an even more fundamental issue. Our society, along with I imagine most settled societies, seems to hold two very different views of housing:

1. Housing is a basic human need. Most people seem to agree that everyone should ideally have some safe, reasonably comfortable space to occupy, with access to at least basic services and amenities. Views on how to achieve it vary, considerably, but logically this implies that (within a market economy) the end goal should be reducing the cost of housing as much as possible.
2. Housing is everyman's investment account. I sense that a majority, and certainly a solid majority of the politically engaged, want housing to be a reliably profitable asset for owner-occupants. Logically, this implies that the end goal should be housing costs which are high and go ever up. And indeed, we seem to have a broad consensus that buoyant house prices are almost always A Good Thing.

I trust that everyone sees the dilemma, here?

As a general rule, I agree that constraints on housing supply are mostly artificial, until the area under discussion gets very, very small. But it seems to me that the main driver of those constraints is not historic preservation, or knee-jerk suspicion of developers, but simply how our culture takes for granted that we should encourage precisely what those constraints produce: rising costs of housing.

Just as it seems to me that an incompatible view of desirable housing outcomes, which is perhaps less politically influential in aggregate but of much more concern to specific communities (e.g. low-income renters), is the inevitable driver of conflicts over rights, best use, etc. Many of these conflicts get defined as battles over "gentrification." In my view, though, they are largely battles over which incompatible objective for housing actually wins out.

(Disclosure: I rent, although this seems that it should not matter at the moment as I have made no policy prescriptions. One thing at a time.)

[Dan Alaimo]

If I understand him correctly, Jim is taking a narrow view of gentrification.
But there is the ideal - upgrading a municipality in way that benefits all - and the real - knocking down old structures to make way for ill conceived strip shopping centers.
There is also organic gentrification - where individuals come into a desirable area and improve the structures and conditions (I think Jackie's approach to his apartments fits here) - and manufactured gentrification, where the issue is forced by those seeking to make a buck off the redevelopment, like the West End and the hospital deals. What's the word? Oh yes, "progress."

In many places, I've seen wrong-headed approaches to this. I think back to Mount Kisco NY where "urban development" displaced my uncles' small grocery store, my grandparents home and many other dwellings, and replaced it with light commercial development, car dealers and a shopping center that has already come and gone over several decades. Then there was Yorktown Heights NY, where I grew up - they built several strip shopping centers on wetlands causing flooding in residential areas. The chain stores there have gone in and out of business and the parking lots have always been disasters. And I experience it a couple of times a week when I go to the Marc's shopping plaza - the "centerpiece" of our city. When I drive, I have to navigate that badly designed parking lot, or when I walk I have to dodge around Marc's shopping carts.

When gentrification occurs naturally, as is happening all around Lakewood, it is good for everybody. But when it is manufactured or forced, the result is usually pretty terrible.

[james fitzgibbons]

Yorkstown Heights looks like a nice place to grow up. Many areas for fishing and outdoors. My father grew up In Watertown NY.

[Dan Alaimo]

Yorkstown Heights looks like a nice place to grow up. Many areas for fishing and outdoors. My father grew up In Watertown NY.

Camping and fishing were a big part of life back then - woods just beyond the backyard (and Bronfmans beyond that) and a half mile to the Croton Reservoir (once the Croton River). Where I lived used to be a farm until the area started moving upscale. Way back when, John Andre traveled the road where I lived on his mission for Benedict Arnold.

[Tim Liston]

So OK I don’t know the first thing about gentrification, at least not academically. But since Observers are talking about it, and about their original hometowns, I’ll relate my experience. And try to keep it short. Or not….

I grew up about midway between Huron and Vermilion on 2+ acres of lakefront property. Over three years ago my wife and I bought it “back” out of my mom’s estate. When I was very young, like maybe 55 years ago, Huron got all excited about “urban renewal.” That’s when you basically tore out what’s there, say the entirety of downtown Huron, and you build something “modern” in its place. Something planners decide on. Urban renewal was the rage back then. One of my oldest memories of my Dad was his loud objections to what Huron wanted to (and eventually did) undertake. My dad was an architect and he did have a good sense of beauty and historical significance.

(As a quick aside, we lived about 200 yards from the boundary between the (then) 216 and 419 area codes. We went to school in Vermilion and shopped in Huron/Sandusky, so we had two land-line phones. It was cheaper than making a lot of long distance calls. Vermilion was a party line. Anyone remember them? Even more unusually, the same boundary also separated time zones (!) back then. For six months a year Huron and Vermilion were an hour different. It could be pretty confusing if you did not distinguish between “Huron time” and “Vermilion time”….)

So yes, Huron tore out its downtown and began “modernizing.” Vermilion did not go the “urban renewal” route. They kept their quaint little downtown, which remains to this day. And it’s crystal clear that Huron made a big mistake and will live with it forever. Vermilion is something of a destination. Huron has nothing, it is completely inauspicious. Lots of boating, but they always had that.

I don’t think of “gentrification” as something that is planned. Gentrification happens naturally and organically. “Pioneers” see an area with lots of potential and ultra-cheap housing, and decide to take a chance. A big chance. Then you get (hopefully) the all-important “first followers” that make gentrification successful. Some years ago I sat in a presentation about the Montessori High School (in University Circle, where both my daughters attended) and learned of the importance of first followers in enabling a movement, e.g. gentrification. Check out the AMAZING following video about first followers. First followers are key.



I think organically occurring gentrification is a good thing. “Forced” gentrification, not so much, that’s not gentrification in my mind. That’s urban planning, what politicians do. As for the people who are displaced by gentrification, that’s a close call, but organic gentrification forces nobody to sell, and there’s still plenty of affordable housing available, most times quite near the area that is changing (yes) for the better. (And by the way, Jackie, I’m with you brother!) Birdtown would be a great place for organic gentrification. I’d consider being a first follower there except my next move is probably out of Lakewood.

[Bridget Conant]

Tim

I like the distinction between "organic gentrification" and "urban renewal" that is a political process. I distinctly recall my aunt in PA losing her historic home in a small town outside Pittsburgh. The entire charming little town was bulldozed for new apartment buildings. I think they called it the "Model Cities" program. Just like Huron, it was a flop and today the area is depressed and ugly. So much for the millions of taxpayer dollars wasted!

Very few things pushed by politicians turn out well.

[cmager]

The Deck needs a video clip Hall of Fame. The "First Follower: Leadership Lessons from Dancing Guy" clip is a HOFer...by acclimation.

This is also an early entry into the "Best Application of Video Clip" for the 2017 awards season.
Oh my LOL. I need more shows.

[Jim O'Bryan]

I think organically occurring gentrification is a good thing. “Forced” gentrification, not so much, that’s not gentrification in my mind. That’s urban planning, what politicians do. As for the people who are displaced by gentrification, that’s a close call, but organic gentrification forces nobody to sell, and there’s still plenty of affordable housing available, most times quite near the area that is changing (yes) for the better. (And by the way, Jackie, I’m with you brother!) Birdtown would be a great place for organic gentrification. I’d consider being a first follower there except my next move is probably out of Lakewood.

Tim

As well put as anything I have read.

Dan

Lakewood's is not organic it is forced, by people that do not even understand what they are doing. Well, maybe one Bryce Slyvester, the first "planner" since Tom Jordan who was actually trained in the field of Urban Design. Of course Urban design today is about bum proof benches, and parks that look nice but not used...

There is a book I quote often, "Slaughter of Cities" that talks about how areas, tracts of land, called cities are built, built up in value, destroyed and rebuilt. I have said this often, "Developers are not evil, they simply have to buy low, improve and sell high." It is how they do it, that gets ugly nasty and some is criminal. But it is always hidden as good for the community. It is a fascinating topic.

What I am speaking of is where the two meet. There is always friction, distrust, profiteering, and all out wars, as we have witnessed here with the WestEnd, the Schools, the Hospital, etc. And numerous border wars that have cropped up all over town.

In a vacuum, who has rights if everyone is obeying the law? The tow truck company with the truck that beeps by law, or the homeowner that bought the bedroom next to it?

A real question from the bar meeting 10 years ago. Increase in drunks, violence, parking, condoms etc. Who should pay for the policing? The bar owners, the owners, all of us? If it is all of us then we deserve a long hard look at if it is a profit, negative, or no impact. The condos at McKinley, and on Sloane are paying the taxes of what was there before for up to ten years I believe. That means Tim Listen pays as much in tax as both developments together. Fair? What are our school children and the rest of us taking a hit for these projects?

Can the person that now lives next to a McDonald's, after buying on a quiet street, next to two houses, complain about the drive thru volume? Get satisfaction? Get financial relief for the loss of value? McDonald's is a perfect example. They were given incentives to move to Detroit. Is that organic? How does that property on Sloan figure into the new "West End" aka "WE" project? Was that as planned as the decanting of the hospital?

.

[Paul Schrimpf]

Madison's East End renewal seems pretty authentic ... Mahalls, Barocco, Griffin, Taco Tanto, several other small establishments...Nat and I walked past everything from Alameda to Warren and most of it was hopping. And nary a chain in the bunch. Parking at Madison Park for free makes a big difference. Just my observation.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Madison's East End renewal seems pretty authentic ... Mahalls, Barocco, Griffin, Taco Tanto, several other small establishments...Nat and I walked past everything from Alameda to Warren and most of it was hopping. And nary a chain in the bunch. Parking at Madison Park for free makes a big difference. Just my observation.

Paul

I would agree that Birdtown is actually looking revitalized.

Your examples are merely bars and restaurants changing owners or formats though. Griffin the exception, which while nice is relatively slow.

The Bevy not making it, other businesses up there in trouble.

.

[Bridget Conant]

Jim

According to Google, the Bevy is permanently closed. I do see the building and biz is for sale, but do you know if it's still open for business?

There must be a joke here somewhere - how many millenials does it take to keep a bar in business?

[Jim O'Bryan]

Jim

According to Google, the Bevy is permanently closed. I do see the building and biz is for sale, but do you know if it's still open for business?

There must be a joke here somewhere - how many millenials does it take to keep a bar in business?

Bridget

No jokes.

If you talk to the most successful bar and restaurant owners in town they will tell you, too many. Imagine how the less than successful bars are doing.

But to bring this in to perspective. Why do Birdtown bars get a pass on noise, when bars in other areas, get slapped every night with a fine?

.

[Paul Schrimpf]

I would call Mahalls and Barocco pretty successful, at least from a distance. Bevy was ill conceived from the get go. Winchester couldn't get acts, so not sure why they thought the same formula would fly. A for effort, it was a nice looking redesign. Birdtown Beverage surviving so far.

Is there bar noise in my neighborhood of which I am not aware? I don't listen to the scanner so maybe I miss hearing about it.

When has Lakewood had just the right number of bars?

There will always be turnover as dreams rise and fall. But I like Madison right now. From Mahalls to Angelos, it's not too shabby.