Brooklyn 'Gentrification'

[RattlerGator]

lastdaysoffla, please understand. I'm not attacking you. I said up front: interesting post. I am going after, however, what I believe inspired your post. You're doing what is fashionable these days. Everything is outward-focus. Little introspection, or so it seems to me. That's why I started out by asking, "Can't the objectivity flow in two directions? And, at a minimum, shouldn't it?"

You're posing a question to us that includes a questionable (because it is conclusory) presumption, IMHO. I guess you don't see that or acknowledge it but I see it clearly. Some people on this board have championed affordable housing options in Springfield, for instance. Maybe that would work west of Park Street but, more than likely, let's be honest about this, Brooklyn has been subsumed by Riverside. As a *very* desirable place to live, with an interstate system serving as something of a backyard fence, the die has likely been cast. I don't see that as a bad thing. The urban core desperately needs enclaves that serve to attract taxpaying commercial entities.

You say you don't see how my "more government, please" allegation is applicable to your post but JaxAvondale has (I think) essentially posted the answer for me with this comment re Dublin, Ireland:

So, the units are pricey but the government provided a number low-cost & medium cost units in a lot buildings to integrate different classes together.

Okay? That is likely the only way to try to attain what you would have desired for Brooklyn. And it is one reason I threw some shade at simms3 and San Francisco in my original response. Outrageous government interference out there hasn't been able to do a damn thing about gentrification and the proud black population of that city (among other populations) has been dispersed elsewhere around San Francisco Bay by the enormity of the tech money that resides in the area.

My bottom line: utopian ideas are largely nothing more than masturbation. They will pass in a rush, sure, but ultimately they are a poor substitute for genuine intercourse because they don't work, and they never will. Your initial assertion, the very reason for your post, derives from what I'm sure is a well-meaning place but it has a fatal flaw; it was (and is) utopian.

[Adam White]

You say you don't see how my "more government, please" allegation is applicable to your post but JaxAvondale has (I think) essentially posted the answer for me with this comment re Dublin, Ireland:

So, the units are pricey but the government provided a number low-cost & medium cost units in a lot buildings to integrate different classes together.

Okay? That is likely the only way to try to attain what you would have desired for Brooklyn. And it is one reason I threw some shade at simms3 and San Francisco in my original response. Outrageous government interference out there hasn't been able to do a damn thing about gentrification and the proud black population of that city (among other populations) has been dispersed elsewhere around San Francisco Bay by the enormity of the tech money that resides in the area.

My bottom line: utopian ideas are largely nothing more than masturbation. They will pass in a rush, sure, but ultimately they are a poor substitute for genuine intercourse because they don't work, and they never will. Your initial assertion, the very reason for your post, derives from what I'm sure is a well-meaning place but it has a fatal flaw; it was (and is) utopian.

It's not necessarily "more government". In the UK, many developments are required to contain a certain amount of 'affordable housing'. This doesn't necessarily mean it's underwritten by the government - it just means that developes have to include affordable units when they do these large developments. And for good reason - real estate prices are ridiculous and homes are being snatched up by wealthy investors.

I'd not be too surprised to find out they have similar policies in the ROI.

[Kerry]

Lol. I'm black and considered renting in Brooklyn. I ended up deciding to go elsewhere and pay a couple hundred more in rent per month. Money wasn't my issue. Knowing my regular work commute to Central Florida and the thought of dealing with I-95 construction between the Fuller Warren, Overland Bridge and JTB were.

It's not that bad.  Until last month I worked in Orlando.  I left about 7AM, went across the Acosta Bridge, and hit 95 South.  The only problem is the near daily accident at that stupid Atlantic Blvd exit.  After that, smooth sailing until Lake Mary Blvd in Orlando.

[thelakelander]

^There were some other factors too. I was also factoring in the Fuller Warren Bridge expansion project getting underway. Since that time, its construction was delayed by a year. A simple switch across the river, resulted in the ability to use a variety of state and local streets as alternatives on I-95's worst days.

[RattlerGator]

Adam, you're taking an incredibly narrow approach on the question.Who the heck is talking about underwriting? If it doesn't necessarily involve more government, who the heck is requiring -- and enforcing the requirement -- that they contain a certain amount of 'affordable housing,' hmmmmm ? ? ?

Yes, that is obviously and necessarily more government, please.

That may be too much of an ideological rant (the triggered safe space retreat for stephendare when he has no response; that, and yawning) but it does happen to be the truth.

[Kerry]

Government is already doing that though.  That is what our modern zoning laws are all about.  Suburban developers can't just go build whatever they want.  The local planning department tells them where retail has to go, how many homes per acre they can build, how big those homes can be, how far away they have to be from other types of homes, etc. etc. etc.

[Adam White]

Adam, you're taking an incredibly narrow approach on the question.Who the heck is talking about underwriting? If it doesn't necessarily involve more government, who the heck is requiring -- and enforcing the requirement -- that they contain a certain amount of 'affordable housing,' hmmmmm ? ? ?

Yes, that is obviously and necessarily more government, please.

That may be too much of an ideological rant (the triggered safe space retreat for stephendare when he has no response; that, and yawning) but it does happen to be the truth.

Sorry, but I really have no answer to this. People who think like this make me worry about our future as a species.

[RattlerGator]

So, Adam, I've triggered you now? Allergic to the truth, are you?

And Kerry, what government do you know around the South (and most of this nation) dictating to developers that a number low-cost & medium cost units in any building must be provided for the express purpose of integrating different classes together ? ? ?

The point, rather obviously, wasn't government enforcing regulations -- why respond as if it was? *That* type of regulation, however? Oh yeah, more government please.

Can we please remember the context of my comment to lastdaysoffla and my example of the failure of heavy regulations in San Francisco to do a damn thing about gentrification?

Stephendare has this bizarre juvenile need to not only presume stupidity but insist upon it for anyone daring to put forward a contrary thought. That's the tactic of a severe partisan who can't handle adult conversation.

[Adam White]

So, Adam, I've triggered you now? Allergic to the truth, are you?

And Kerry, what government do you know around the South (and most of this nation) dictating to developers that a number low-cost & medium cost units in any building must be provided for the express purpose of integrating different classes together ? ? ?

The point, rather obviously, wasn't government enforcing regulations -- why respond as if it was? *That* type of regulation, however? Oh yeah, more government please.

Can we please remember the context of my comment to lastdaysoffla and my example of the failure of heavy regulations in San Francisco to do a damn thing about gentrification?

Stephendare has this bizarre juvenile need to not only presume stupidity but insist upon it for anyone daring to put forward a contrary thought. That's the tactic of a severe partisan who can't handle adult conversation.

I don't understand what you mean by "triggered".

I appreciate when people take exception to the government spending beyond its means. Or spending taxpayer money on what some might find to be frivolous projects. I also understand why people get upset when the government meddles in their private lives or perhaps insists on too many regulations.

What I can't understand is why any reasonable person would take exception to the government trying to ensure people have a place to live. Trying to ensure that people aren't priced out of living in particular areas.

All the government does when it places conditions on planning permission for something like this slightly reduce the insane amount of money the developer is going to make on the project anyway. It's not hurting its profitability. And it's making it possible for a few people to stay in their neighbourhood.

But no... "big government". It's no wonder the world is in the state it is.

[vicupstate]

Charleston has fostered construction of a significant amount of housing on the uber-gentrifying Peninsula for workforce housing.  It has done so by various means including providing the land or completed unit and requiring that any sale only be to someone else that meets the means test.  In other words it can't simply be flipped for a quick profit, to someone not classified as Workforce.

It has also granted higher unit density (than allowed originally) in exchange for the extra units being devoted to work force. That approach seems to be well received. 

These measures have NOT stopped gentrification, but have allowed for workforce housing on the Peninsula that the market itself would never have provided.               

[Adam White]

Charleston has fostered construction of a significant amount of housing on the uber-gentrifying Peninsula for workforce housing.  It has done so by various means including providing the land or completed unit and requiring that any sale only be to someone else that meets the means test.  In other words it can't simply be flipped for a quick profit, to someone not classified as Workforce.

It has also granted higher unit density (than allowed originally) in exchange for the extra units being devoted to work force. That approach seems to be well received. 

These measures have NOT stopped gentrification, but have allowed for workforce housing on the Peninsula that the market itself would never have provided.             

There are also schemes were housing is set aside for 'key workers' - police officers, nurses, teachers, etc (I think on the notion that they otherwise might not be able to live near where they work).

We also have a shared ownership scheme where the person buys a mortgage for a percentage of the value of the house - like 25% - and the rest is paid in rent to the housing association. Originally, this was to help key workers and others find their way onto the property ladder.

[Kerry]

The over-riding problem in America is that our lending laws are almost exclusively geared towards single-family homes and our zoning ordinances are almost all segregated zoning, and where urban mixed-use zoning is implemented the local government hands out variences like candy on Halloween.  It's too bad nobody wants to build live/work units, homes with granny-flats or garage apartments, or even row houses with basement apartments.  When I watch House Hunter International almost every home they show in Europe would be illegal here or couldn't get a loan to build.

[Adam White]

The over-riding problem in America is that our lending laws are almost exclusively geared towards single-family homes and our zoning ordinances are almost all segregated zoning, and where urban mixed-use zoning is implemented the local government hands out variences like candy on Halloween.  It's too bad nobody wants to build live/work units, homes with granny-flats or garage apartments, or even row houses with basement apartments.  When I watch House Hunter International almost every home they show in Europe would be illegal here or couldn't get a loan to build.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I had to get a 25 year mortgage (wanted a 30 year) because the bank wouldn't allow me to borrow past my retirement age. If I'd have waited much longer, I might've struggled to get a mortgage!

[Adam White]

So, Adam, I've triggered you now? Allergic to the truth, are you?

And Kerry, what government do you know around the South (and most of this nation) dictating to developers that a number low-cost & medium cost units in any building must be provided for the express purpose of integrating different classes together ? ? ?

The point, rather obviously, wasn't government enforcing regulations -- why respond as if it was? *That* type of regulation, however? Oh yeah, more government please.

Can we please remember the context of my comment to lastdaysoffla and my example of the failure of heavy regulations in San Francisco to do a damn thing about gentrification?

Stephendare has this bizarre juvenile need to not only presume stupidity but insist upon it for anyone daring to put forward a contrary thought. That's the tactic of a severe partisan who can't handle adult conversation.

Not really.  I engage opposing opinions all day.  I just oppose the uninformed and bizarre ones.

No one is 'allergic' to your commentary. No one is triggered by your posts.  They are just long robot responses that try and fit your bizarre political beliefs as an overlay to whatever is being discussed.

I assume you do it for attention.

Clarification: there is no UK legislation or requirement that states that low-cost & medium cost units in any building must be provided.

There is Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 which allows planning authorities (usually local councils) to place conditions on developments. They can be any sort of conditions - and they don't necessarily have to place conditions on developments.

[strider]

Gentrification is not just about housing and rental pricing, it is about the businesses and services that cater to a poorer population.  To see that, all you have to do is read the various threads over the last decade about Springfield pushing out various businesses, groups of people being told they are not allowed to live there, hear real estate agents tell you they have the right to determine who can live where, and, more recently, how the city conducted itself on behalf of the community over the Ability Housing project.

One underlying mantra I have seen in studies about turning around urban areas is "if you are good enough to work here, you are good enough to live here."  That is far more than making housing affordable, it is the business and transportation needs being met as well.  Springfield should be showing us that the government must be involved because a community left to it's own resources won't make the right decisions. 

What's interesting though is that once  the "wrong" people are in place, the vast majority of people who spoke against them ending wondering what the issue ever was to start with.