New exhibit at MOCADA: The Gentrification of Brooklyn&

I don't consider this daring at all. Plenty of people have discussed gentrification in Brooklyn long before these guys.

Also, it's ironic that the very people who kickstart gentrification are now casting a critical eye towards it. As though residents of Bushwick are thrilled to see a bunch of so-called artists "pioneers" flooding their neighborhood...

Gentrification is more of a class issue than a race issue. With alot of the press I have read on this exhibit I get the feeling the gallery (and show) is placing all the blame on whitey.

luckmagnet wrote: Gentrification is more of a class issue than a race issue. With alot of the press I have read on this exhibit I get the feeling the gallery (and show) is placing all the blame on whitey.

I don't agree. These communities always had some residents that were more well off (not wealthy, but certainly upper-middle class). They were not considered gentrifiers because they either grew up un the community or similar communities and had some understanding of the existing social mores. A black person moving from Harlem to Bed-Stuy or from Oakland, NW Washington, or Baltimore wasn't seen as a gentrifier regardless of their economic status. It is primarily about race, and then secondarily about race AND class.

whynot_31 wrote: some gentrifiers are more welcome than others.

Exactly

well said Clay

The coffee shop seems to be well loved and a neighborhood asset.

The trick is knowing what businesses are "good for the community" and which aren't. I can imagine there isn't much $ and a lot of long hours involved in running a nieghborhood coffee shop, and I hope they figure out a way to survive for the long term.

...the support of long time friends and customers is good for only so long.

In an ideal situation, the community would simply not shop somewhere that did not pay its workers fairly, hire local residents, or make a contribution to the local community in some way.

...in reality, such "bad" (my words) businesses frequently prosper b/c folks are desperate for jobs and, presumably, the crap being sold. This seems to be true whether the business is an "evil" (again, my word) multinational chain store, or even owned by some local who is strictly out for $.

...the recent "living wage mall in the bronx debate" comes to mind.
The issue received lots of press, with various spins, but here are two "lefty" articles on the topic that give folks who haven't been following it a general idea:
http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/146068
http://www.indypendent.org/2010/01/07/victory-in-the-bronx/

In my view, it all comes down to:
At what point does one say I'd rather have "NO" mall (or stand alone store, etc) than "THAT" one?

There's also the troublesome issue of WHO gets to say "no" or "yes" on behalf of whole a community. Rarely are communities united in their opinions on anything. However, in this case the community board seems to have voted 45-1 to allow the mall only if it paid a living wage, but was then ruled by Bloomberg.

...although I'm not well read on Bronx politics, I'm told the mall debate is far from over.

My long winded point: At some point, if you make labor too expensive and put too many restrictions on potential businesses, the businesses will just go elsewhere, and the community residents will continue to have limited local businesses or employment.

Sometimes the people who want change end up siding with the people who want "no change", and don't even realize it until after several promising developments/businesses have turned them down.

Meanwhile, the local Bodegas leave many desires and needs unfilled, and the youth (among others) continue to have very limited employment choices.