New-old house article in T-U this past Sat

[Karl_Pilkington]

a lot of those homes that were "gentrified" were abandoned, falling apart wrecks.  To suggest that "gentrification" is a bad thing because someone with a job who pays taxes and is trying to raise a family invests his or her money and labor into a home displaces some low income person is ridiculous.  Many of the great homes in Springfield were abandoned at one time, left to fall apart.  So thanks to those who risked their money and safety to come in and save those homes!  Wish there were more of them frankly.  It sure would have been a heck of a lot easier to buy a new home in a gated suburb somewhere and leave those homes to the wrecking ball.  Gentrification is not a pejorative, unless you are one who loves blight and watching those homes fall down on themselves, we've all got a little schadenfreude in us.

[thelakelander]

the issue of "gentrification" is much more complex than many of us believe.  Its much deeper than replacing siding on a historic home or putting up white picket fences and historic replica lamp posts.  Its also more than making sure the pimp and his whores are no longer working the corners & alleys.

As with all topics, there is a such thing as good AND bad gentrification.  Good gentrification finds a way to revitalize while preserving things like history, culture, architecture, the natural setting, mom & pops.  It also embraces the idea of having a vibrant mix of uses and housing options that appeal to a diversified crowd.  In an urban neighborhood like Springfield, this would mean having single family, multi-family and neighborhood commercial uses mixed together on the same streets, as opposed to articially separating them like the typical suburban zoning regulations.

Imo, bad gentrification seeks to eliminate many of these things in an effort to appeal to one group, either socially or economically.  If we really want areas like Springfield to become vibrant urban neighborhoods we have to make sure we're not killing the things that make the place special.

[strider]

There have been some links posted to interesting articles.  Some make interesting assumptions about gentrification.  While I am not an expert by any means, I do believe that Lakelander is closer to the truth than anybody.  First, studies can be made to say pretty much whatever you want them to.  The articles that “Joe” linked to even goes on to say that it does not  necessarily apply to every city.

What we are talking about is a social-economic issue and problem.  Many, including some experts who write articles, still think of it as a racial thing as much as anything.  On the surface, it may often be, but in today’s world, it is more economic than anything.  It cannot be helped that the majority of the lower economic classes seem to be from the minorities.  At least one article uses the fact that higher economically advantaged minorities are moving into “gentrified” areas as proof of their ideas.  We have seen this in Springfield and it is part of making a neighborhood truly integrated.  It does not, however, dispel any issues over the social economic impacts of gentrification.

The nuts and bolts of this; the houses, the public services and the attitude  of the service providers, make this issue either bigger or smaller.  The houses are large in many urban residential areas, allowing for multiple residents per house.  But an upwardly mobile community doesn’t like the sharing of houses typically.  The other issue is that the houses cost more to maintain so that has to be factored in as well. The bus service and the ability to walk to stores for what you need enters into it.  Then again, not all of the “new comers” like the old types of businesses that are typically found in urban areas.  Police and fire do not often like the urban areas for their own reasons.  Some good, some just because it is easier to let it happen there than deal with it.  Yet, the majority of the poor do not cause the crime or the blight.  They are the victims as well.  They can be forced to live with the crime simply because the service providers do not address it in their area and so what else can the poor do?  “Gentrification” encompasses all this and more.

I wonder what the difference is when you factor in the size of a city’s urban core.  For instance, is the same data found in a city like Chicago or New York as it would be in places like Jacksonville?  Or does the fact that  Jacksonville has a much smaller urban area change the dynamics of gentrification dramatically?  When moving to the other side of town, as you are being replaced by wealthier people in the urban core, means getting up  2 hours earlier and getting home from work 2 hours later due to the bus schedules.  If you could afford to live in the urban core, the ride would be ½ hour.  A big difference to a single mother struggling to raise two kids on her own.  All part of this issue and just part of what makes it difficult to not only remedy, but even understand.

[Karl_Pilkington]

When moving to the other side of town, as you are being replaced by wealthier people in the urban core, means getting up  2 hours earlier and getting home from work 2 hours later due to the bus schedules.  If you could afford to live in the urban core, the ride would be ½ hour.  A big difference to a single mother struggling to raise two kids on her own.  All part of this issue and just part of what makes it difficult to not only remedy, but even understand.

a lot of assumptions made in this statement, wealthier people "replacing" the poor, all jobs are in urban core or only those jobs the poor work at are, having to move "across" town, even though all the neighborhoods that surround Springfield in particular aren't known for their wealth, the whole single mother with two kids thing, how about single fathers?  when I moved to Springfield I didn't replace any poor people, in fact they moved into a new home somewhere on the westside and frankly were happier than anything to get out.  There are a crapload of jobs all over this town, downtown is only one place that has a few.   So it would appear that you have some type of agenda.  My neighbors are all races, black, white, hispanic, asian you name it, so this whole idea that rich yuppies are coming in to displace the working poor is crap.  We're all working poor, if you have to work for a living you aren't rich, sorry.  Don't know any actual rich people in my neighborhood we all have jobs.

[strider]

a lot of assumptions made in this statement, wealthier people "replacing" the poor, all jobs are in urban core or only those jobs the poor work at are, having to move "across" town, even though all the neighborhoods that surround Springfield in particular aren't known for their wealth, the whole single mother with two kids thing, how about single fathers?  when I moved to Springfield I didn't replace any poor people, in fact they moved into a new home somewhere on the westside and frankly were happier than anything to get out.  There are a crapload of jobs all over this town, downtown is only one place that has a few.   So it would appear that you have some type of agenda.  My neighbors are all races, black, white, hispanic, asian you name it, so this whole idea that rich yuppies are coming in to displace the working poor is crap.  We're all working poor, if you have to work for a living you aren't rich, sorry.  Don't know any actual rich people in my neighborhood we all have jobs.

Yep, a few assumptions as an example.  Not trying to say this is what always happen, but rather what could happen. Let's face it, we all have known people who have had to drive crazy distances to get a job.  It happens.  As does what I used to illustrate what could happen here. This discussion is not about blame, but rather about an issue so that worse issues can be avoided.  Sorry to tell you, but jobs are not as plentiful as you might like to believe.  And things are not going to get better over night, in fact, expect much fewer jobs in the near future.  If you have a job, odds are you will keep it even if you have to move across town.  It is better than no job, is it not?

As the cost of living goes up in an urban core area, people will be forced to move.  Is it your falult?  Of course not.  Should you be aware of what is happening?  Up to you.  And I do have an agenda.  Don't you?  Sounds like you do.  You think this whole discussion is crap.  OK.  You are entitled to that opinion.  And rich is pretty relative.  If you make $80K a year, you can be considered pretty rich by someone who is struggling on $15K a year.  Again, not your fault, but something that just is.

The important part of what you quoted from my post is "All part of this issue and just part of what makes it difficult to not only remedy, but even understand."  You helped me prove that point.  It is difficult to understand and even getting some to recognize the problem is difficult in itself.  I go back to what Lakelander said. There is good and bad "gentrification" and sorting through what is best for each individual community and all of it’s residents should be the goal.  And that's my agenda.

[RiversideGator]

I think the gentrification of Springfield is great.  The poor folks and the absentee landlords were not exactly keeping their homes in good repair.  The places were disintegrating until middle class people of all races started to move in and revitalize the neighborhood.  What is the problem?

BTW, regarding transit you are assuming that people who are being displaced from Springfield work nearby.  They might just as easily find housing closer to their jobs.

[sheclown]

the issue of "gentrification" is much more complex than many of us believe.  Its much deeper than replacing siding on a historic home or putting up white picket fences and historic replica lamp posts.  Its also more than making sure the pimp and his whores are no longer working the corners & alleys.

As with all topics, there is a such thing as good AND bad gentrification.  Good gentrification finds a way to revitalize while preserving things like history, culture, architecture, the natural setting, mom & pops.  It also embraces the idea of having a vibrant mix of uses and housing options that appeal to a diversified crowd.  In an urban neighborhood like Springfield, this would mean having single family, multi-family and neighborhood commercial uses mixed together on the same streets, as opposed to articially separating them like the typical suburban zoning regulations.

Imo, bad gentrification seeks to eliminate many of these things in an effort to appeal to one group, either socially or economically.  If we really want areas like Springfield to become vibrant urban neighborhoods we have to make sure we're not killing the things that make the place special.

Absolutely, you have hit it right on.  We are all responsible to make sure there are plans in place not to displace--

Here is a question, what happens to gentrification (both the positive and negative effects of it), when housing values tank? 

[strider]

OK, I'll bite:

I think the gentrification of Springfield is great.  The poor folks and the absentee landlords were not exactly keeping their homes in good repair.  The places were disintegrating until middle class people of all races started to move in and revitalize the neighborhood.  What is the problem?

So, what about you?  Are you rich?  Are you poor? (Yes, rhetorical questions, no answers please.)  Those poor folk, do they deserve less police protection because they are poor?  Do they deserve only to live in slums because they are poor? Could you keep a house like those in Springfield in perfect repair on below poverty level incomes?  What about what an average teacher makes?  A convenience store clerk?  Where are those people supposed to live?  What about the guy whose wife ran off and left him to raise three kids on a janitor's salary?  What about the engineer that got laid off two years ago and still hasn't gotten a job because he can't compete with those thirty years his junior? There could be thousands of examples.  Not everyone will be "successful" in an economic sense.  Can't happen.  If it were to, who would do the blue collar work? Who would do the work that many of our grandfathers, (and Grandmothers, mothers) if not fathers, did? Who would pick up the garbage, who would clean those floors?  There always has been and always will be the working poor. Some will rise above that level, but many will not, can not.  Not their fault, not your fault.  Just the way it is.

Absentee landlords.  Hmmm.  Are you aware that many "absentee landlords" that did not maintain their buildings very well, or at least it seemed that way, are doing so now? There are several doing so in Springfield even as we speak.  Many did sell out and move on.  But some actually wanted to have nicer places but the values did not justify it. Now it does. Yes, I just said a good thing from "gentrification".

So what's the problem?  Well, it was their neighborhood to start with.  All I mean is that they were here when no one else seem to want to be here.  Perhaps that's even why they were here.  No one else wanted it so it was affordable, if not very nice nor safe.  Some were here before the decline and just stayed.  In many cases, those houses that many are so proud of restoring are here at all because it was an affordable place for someone to live so it was at least partially kept up and so it survived. At the moment, according to the study that LISC uses, 44% of the residents make less than 15K per year. Should all efforts be geared towards the "paltry" few who makes more than 80K or those 44%?  Should the businesses that are encouraged to open in Springfield be ones that cater to mostly the 15K incomes or the 80K incomes? There are as many answers to these questions as there are people reading this forum.  This discussion is not only about the pros and cons of gentrification, which, by the way, is nothing but a term used to describe a process and in itself, is not good or bad, but just is; but, it is also about how to address the issues it brings to all of the residents of a community.  This discussion should be taking place and should be a concern to everyone because it shapes how the above questions are answered.  It affects what happens to and for not only the working poor, but everybody within the community.  City planners, I believe, are taught that an urban community does indeed need its blue collar "working poor" to be truly successful.  Not only as workers inside of the area, but as residents and patrons of the local businesses.

BTW, regarding transit you are assuming that people who are being displaced from Springfield work nearby.  They might just as easily find housing closer to their jobs.

Yep, that is true.  It can and does happen both ways.  But one of the things you find in an urban core is that it is often the location of the types of businesses that employ the bottom pay scales. If these businesses are not located directly within the urban area, such as in Springfield, they are most likely just outside of it.  It is often why the urban community grew to begin with: the proximately of businesses needing a work force. Sometimes even visa versa, the businesses came because the people were here.  Remember that not all that long ago, even the middle, middle class did not have personal transportation.  Even today, many very successful people who live in large urban cores depend upon public transportation for their everyday transportation  needs.

Perhaps an important thing is to remember that this discussion is not "about" Springfield, but rather "applies" to Springfield.  These same issues, this same discussion, can and does apply to thousands of communities around the country.  The current economic climate makes finding a way to communicate about and finding ways to deal with these issues even more important.  I believe that the best way to insure that Springfield does not slide backwards, but continues its forward progress, is to try to find the best way to deal with these issues in a way that encompasses all of the residents', poor or rich,  needs, wants and desires.

[sheclown]

BTW, I was not able to find the same dictionary quote post above. Ca we have the name of the dictionary please.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gentrification

[thelakelander]

Here is a question, what happens to gentrification (both the positive and negative effects of it), when housing values tank?

Tanking housing values have a negative impact on bad gentrification.  Lower overall values make the community more affordable, which leads to more diversity (race, age, economic & cultural).

Over the last couple of years, Springfield property and home values had become artifically inflated, thus making it difficult for market rate residential and small commercial start ups to get underway.  The declining market conditions, bring down those values to more realistic levels, thus creating an opportunity for people who may not have been able to afford the prices of a couple of years ago.  Now there is a real chance for more creative types and urban pioneers to move into the neighborhood.  This also gives the community a chance to focus on keeping existing businesses open and improving them.  Its much easier to do this than to recruit new businesses in the current economic atmosphere.  Slumlords may also be willing to get rid of some of the vacant and underutilized properties they own, as opposed to letting them rot until they can sell them for high profit margins.  I think Springfield will benefit from this.  

[fatcat]

I frequently hear people use the phrase "their neighborhood" and hold an hostile attitude towards new residents. I do not exactly know how to feel about this.

Why should I be hated because I am a new comer of the neighborhood? What did I do wrong? Is it because I brought an expensive house that raised the average home value here? Is it because I called the police on corner "pharmacist"? Is it because I ask the hooker in front of my house to taker the business else where?

I do not know how many of the anti-gentrification believers actually know a gentrification victim at personal level. On my block, there are nurses, truck drivers, retired couples, single mothers and construction workers.  All these people live in well maintained houses. Some inherent the house from their parents. Some brought the house decades ago.  Some brought a derelict demolition candidate and turned it into a home. Some brought rehabbed house. Some brought new house looks like old. Some rent an apartment from a recently rehabbed house. We all get along just fine. We have a truely diversified community. The great benefit of the neighborhood gentrification.

I seriously suspect that people complained about the "poor being driven out of the city" are the same people live in the suburbs who is afraid of the poor invading their gated paradise. Wow! how quick do people forget the trailer parks in the burbs before they were sterilized into gated communities. That is true sterilization. Hmm, I wonder where are the displaced trailer park dwellers now.

IMHO, gentrification is great. it is how cities become alive again. Compare to building more and more artificial town centers filled with chain stores, we invest in our own community revitalize the real town center. it is good for the economy. It is good for the environment. it is good for next generation.

[sheclown]

fatcat, I hear what you are saying. 

It is complicated.

Personally, if we (as a city, as a neighborhood) could open our minds and hearts to discuss what to do with people who are displaced as their neighborhoods are being revitalized.  Or even better, find a way to incorporate the existing into the new vision, then we truly would be able to keep our "urban vibe."  Just as the newcomers into this neighborhood are an asset, so are the people who have grown up here.  Planning needs to incorporate all.  That's all.

I don't hear much discussion about that.

Furthermore, when the neighborhood organization (representing a location in which almost half of the population lives below poverty level) charges $50 for an annual membership fee...

[sheclown]

Over the last couple of years, Springfield property and home values had become artifically inflated, thus making it difficult for market rate residential and small commercial start ups to get underway.  

Do you feel that Springfield property and home values were artifcially inflated beyond what occurred in the city as a whole?  In the country?

It was a buying frenzy for a couple of years.  I almost wanted to put a sign out in my front yard which said "This house is NOT for sale."

[samiam]

Another pro for (Gentrification) is a house that already exists is the greenest house of all. Instead of building in the Burbs and creating false towns that use a vast amount of recourses and tax dollars to make there infrastructures, why not curtail new subdivisions and focuses an areas that already have the infrastructure in place

[thelakelander]

^That's a pro for urban infill in general.  Its no secret that the core has loss nearly 50% of its population over the past five decades.  Like many rustbelt cities, Urban Jacksonville is built for twice the density.  Its time for the city to make it a priority to refocus development in areas where infrastructure is already in place.

Do you feel that Springfield property and home values were artifcially inflated beyond what occurred in the city as a whole?  In the country?

No.  Values around the entire city got out of hand during those years.  For revitalizing communities like Springfield, the commercial asking prices probably hurt the most.  People were asking top dollar for decaying structures in an area that was still considered a high risk for new businesses.  Lower commercial values should give a few more people the opportunity to set up shop in Springfield and Downtown.