Brooklyn 'Gentrification'

[RattlerGator]

Interesting OP? Yes. But, honestly:

I implore you to see this objectively, stop white knighting for Brooklyn and see Brooklyn as a development for affluent mostly white residents.

Can't the objectivity flow in two directions? And, at a minimum, shouldn't it? I mean, where's simms3 to tell us about glorious San Francisco and how it has magnificently handled the problem of gentrification? What's that? Oh. You mean they've been awful on the gentrification issue? Well, now. Ain't that a bitch.

It won't surprise many that it looks pretty clear to me lastdaysoffla's post misses the mark. To hell with whether the use of "white knighting" was appropriate or not, I implore lastdaysoffla to tell me what this particular statement means and what, precisely, is the problem with it:

"see Brooklyn as a development for affluent mostly white residents"

I mean, most of the consolidated city consists of white residents -- correct?

So:

Is it your assertion there are too many affluent white residents in the urban core? Probably not.

Is it your assertion this small, cordoned off component of the urban core has some special significance that is being obliterated? Probably not.

Is it your assertion black area residents are clamoring to move there but are being kept out because of redlining? Probably not.

Look, we don't have a gentrification problem in Jacksonville. We don't even have a gentrification issue in Jax. You, yourself, seemed to have admitted this up front before doing a bit of creative backsliding:

It is not often we in Jacksonville talk about gentrification because it just isn't an issue here. When whiter more affluent people want a new place to live Jacksonville responds by cutting down some trees and building a new neighborhood. Now for the controversial bit; Brooklyn has been gentrified. Not gentrification in the traditional sense, where poorer residents were pushed out for richer ones, but gentrification of the highest order wherein an entire 'neighborhood' was manufactured in favor of richer residents.

The highest order? Manufactured?

As best I can tell, your problem is you don't like the redevelopment of Brooklyn. You would prefer it was redeveloped in a different way. You would have apparently preferred you and other like-minded people could have dictated to developers what they have to do in order to obtain your social approval, otherwise they risk earning your disapproval or worse -- they preferably would not have been able to build this type of mix in the first place.

Again, interesting post from a "more government, please" type of perspective: yes. Gentrification problem or issue: no. Not even close. Controversial? It should be.

[lastdaysoffla]

Actually you're wrong in your assertion that I hate the Brooklyn development. All in all I see it as a good thing. I just think it could have been done in way that served to better enrich the community as a whole and not just the people paying for the privilege of being in the new trendy hipster neighborhood.

Is it your assertion black area residents are clamoring to move there but are being kept out because of redlining? Probably not.

No black residents aren't clamoring to be in the new development. The main reason being a one bedroom goes for over $1000 a month at the Brooklyn Riverside.

Yes the entire new Brooklyn neighborhood was manufactured in one go. The only thing that has been there more than two years is the pond at Unity Plaza. You can't argue that older neighborhoods were built in the time span of two years

Also, I don't have the faintest idea where you get the idea that my post advocates for "more government".

[JaxAvondale]

Actually you're wrong in your assertion that I hate the Brooklyn development. All in all I see it as a good thing. I just think it could have been done in way that served to better enrich the community as a whole and not just the people paying for the privilege of being in the new trendy hipster neighborhood.

Is it your assertion black area residents are clamoring to move there but are being kept out because of redlining? Probably not.

No black residents aren't clamoring to be in the new development. The main reason being a one bedroom goes for over $1000 a month at the Brooklyn Riverside.

That is quite the broad brush that you are painting here. One, your claim is absolutely not true. I know a few people who moved into the apartments after they were built. If I didn't find a home in Avondale as fast as I did then I would certainly be living at Riverside 220 right now.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

No black residents aren't clamoring to be in the new development. The main reason being a one bedroom goes for over $1000 a month at the Brooklyn Riverside.

You do realize what you just insinuated here, right?

I'll leave it at that.

[lastdaysoffla]

No black residents aren't clamoring to be in the new development. The main reason being a one bedroom goes for over $1000 a month at the Brooklyn Riverside.

You do realize what you just insinuated here, right?

I'll leave it at that.

Well it's true. Walk through the Brooklyn west of Park St. nobody over there is paying that much for an apartment. 

[Kerry]

No black residents aren't clamoring to be in the new development. The main reason being a one bedroom goes for over $1000 a month at the Brooklyn Riverside.

You do realize what you just insinuated here, right?

I'll leave it at that.

Where is the like button?

[lastdaysoffla]

Wow, didn't know I'd trigger ya'll with a socio-economic reality.

[acme54321]

You can't argue that older neighborhoods were built in the time span of two years

Actually, I think you could. 

Ever heard of the Florida land boom?  Riverside, Avondale, San Marco, Springfield, Ortega, Etc are the Nocatees and Oakleafs of the turn of the last century. 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Wow, didn't know I'd trigger ya'll with a socio-economic reality.

You just spouted off one of the most blatant racist statements I've seen.  It's not a 'trigger' as much as it's a 'what-in-the-actual-fuck-are-you-thinking'.

What you typed:

No black residents aren't clamoring to be in the new development. The main reason being a one bedroom goes for over $1000 a month at the Brooklyn Riverside.

What I read: 

Black aren't going to live here. Those people can't afford $1k / month rent.

Tell me how I'm wrong in making that distinction.  Please.

[Tacachale]

Well this escalated quickly.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Well this escalated quickly.

I'm hoping it was just lost in context.  We'll see.

Ironic considering the website I pulled info from yesterday.  [note to self:  always check the name of the website, no matter the content]

[Tacachale]

Well this escalated quickly.

I'm hoping it was just lost in context.  We'll see.

Ironic considering the website I pulled info from yesterday.  [note to self:  always check the name of the website, no matter the content]

Ha!

To step back a bit, I imagine lastdaysoffla just misspoke. I assume what they were getting at is that the new developments cater to a demographic that is comparatively affluent and mostly white. The prices won't be doable for older residents of Brooklyn and similar neighborhoods, who, in addition to being mostly black, are also mostly poor. If that's the case, I think it's probably true. It's a somewhat complex thought, and it's easy to see how it could be oversimplified into something you don't mean.

[thelakelander]

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.

[lastdaysoffla]

Well this escalated quickly.

I'm hoping it was just lost in context.  We'll see.

Ironic considering the website I pulled info from yesterday.  [note to self:  always check the name of the website, no matter the content]

Yes, out of context.

.


Ha!

To step back a bit, I imagine lastdaysoffla just misspoke. I assume what they were getting at is that the new developments cater to a demographic that is comparatively affluent and mostly white. The prices won't be doable for older residents of Brooklyn and similar neighborhoods, who, in addition to being mostly black, are also mostly poor. If that's the case, I think it's probably true. It's a somewhat complex thought, and it's easy to see how it could be oversimplified into something you don't mean.

This is much more along the lines of what I meant to say ^ Thanks for the benefit of the doubt.

[JaxAvondale]

I guess it is all perspective. I see the Brooklyn development as creating jobs for people who live on the west side of Park.  There is beauty in people interacting with each other. That area didn't have that 5 years ago.

I'm guessing your concern is that a development like Brooklyn tends to move away from the fabric/spirit of the remaining people in the neighborhood. How do these developments bring in new people without alienating the existing neighbors? I don't know the answer but that would make for a good discussion.



They rebuilt an old neighborhood in Dublin to build new apartment buildings. Google's office and other tech firms are close to this area. 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. From what I was told at the time, everybody was able to co-exist with very little issues.