an open letter to landlords.

alafairnadia wrote: if the economy is not the driving force, what is?

Here you go...

http://brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5752

I don't think that topic went anywhere either.

mypasswordwontwork wrote:
I have a question. When well-heeled whites move into a formerly downtrodden nabe en-masse, they are accused of 'ruining' things and so on. Even whites start complaining about the increasing number of whites in that nabe. But what about if there was an influx of people like me; black and Hispanic professionals who demanded overpriced coffeebars and chichi restaurants and designer puppywear stores. What then? A lot of these whites who complain about the influx of whites seem to have a sort of blind adoration for impoverished people of color. But what about upper middle-class people of color? Are they the enemy too?

As suggested, Fort Greene is a great example of this, and in my experience people have always spoken with pride about how the area has retained its "cultural identity" despite all the economic changes. Many a time I've heard or read happy descriptions that the area was a haven for young, black professionals. This is just my own experience, so I could be completely unaware of a tension that in fact exists.

As for the whites who complain about the influx of whites, I think they're cool with middle class blacks coming in, except that those people open the door for other whites (aka the enemy). :twisted: But then again, I should let the well represented segment of anti-gentrification whites on this thread speak for themselves. Young Snitch and supporters (I think at least some of you are white), what's your take on black i-bankers??

shishkab wrote: is it that the locals are starting up new businesses to cater to the new folks, or are the locals either moving or selling their businesses to the new folks? i'm honestly asking, cuz i just don't know enough about it...

It is about those that had been here before the gentrification process. They change to cater those that move here. The "local" landlords and the business owners. They had started the process as the neighborhood started to change.

mypasswordwontwork wrote: I have a question. When well-heeled whites move into a formerly downtrodden nabe en-masse, they are accused of 'ruining' things and so on. Even whites start complaining about the increasing number of whites in that nabe. But what about if there was an influx of people like me; black and Hispanic professionals who demanded overpriced coffeebars and chichi restaurants and designer puppywear stores. What then? A lot of these whites who complain about the influx of whites seem to have a sort of blind adoration for impoverished people of color. But what about upper middle-class people of color? Are they the enemy too?

the short answer, i suppose is "yes" though i wouldn't use the word "enemy" and i am not sure why you have directed a question of race at my post in particular, since i made no mention of it.

personally i find anyone who feels entitled to "demand" things for themselves because they have the economic power to do so, without taking a look around and at least evaluating the effect they will have on the community as a whole to be boorish, insensitive and not someone i would like as a neighbor.

yes, this is a very"entitled" country, but there are still degrees of it, i think part of the stigma of "yuppie" (and "gentrification" for that matter) has to do with the sense of "i'm taking mine and i"m not looking back".
having a sense of responsibility and respect for one's community goes a long way in ameliorating this situation

another thought on this "gentrification" issue
i believe there is a difference between people who move into a neighborhood because they want to live there, make their home there for an extended period of time
and those who do so for a cheap rent, as a stepping stone in the process of moving on towards "something better"
that "something better" usually is more upscale and more homogenous (often culminating in suburbia)
but these people have no problem in trying to make their "temporary" environment more to their liking with no regards for the long term effect of their actions on the rest of the community

i just believe that if you move somewhere because you are drawn to it (be it the architecture, the diversity, etc) or you come to love it though you moved there for its conveniences (low rent, access to manhattan, etc) then you should look around and try to identify what it is that has captivated you and make an effort to keep that intact.

disclaimer: in hindsight i just want to say that i realize i am posting on the ph board and that the whole issue is in a different part of the process when you are west of washington as opposed to east of franklin (see Breuckelen's post here: http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=64562&highlight=#64562)

i just believe that if you move somewhere because you are drawn to it (be it the architecture, the diversity, etc) or you come to love it though you moved there for its conveniences (low rent, access to manhattan, etc) then you should look around and try to identify what it is that has captivated you and make an effort to keep that intact.

And did the Carribeans who live in PH move here for that reason, or because the area had cheap rent, conveniences and was a lot better than the political and economical situations in their home country?

And the Italians and the other ethnic groups who came before the Carribeans, were they drawn to the architecture or to the fact that the lower east side was crowded beyond reason and they had hopes?

And so on. Most people move because they want a better life, a leg up. The architecture, the wide streets, these are luxuries, icing on the cake.

Another point: Whenever a new set of people move into a neighborhood, be it PH, PS or Jackson Heights, in Queens, they don't necessarily keep the identity of the existing neighborhood intact. Most people like to keep their surroundings familiar to what they know and need: hence the cropping up of restaurants and services that cater to the new culture (Jamaican patties, Italian delis, cupcake shops, etc.)

I'm originally from Jackson Heights in Queens. It wasn't always culturally Indian, Asian and Hispanic. It has gone through amazing changes and it's not the neighborhood I knew. That's not gentification, just change. It changed because of the influx of different cultures.

Everything changes. Change is only called gentification if it brings in white middle class values.

escap wrote: Neene, I'm not arguing you, but I am curious to hear some specifics. Can you point to concrete examples of the type of behavior you're talking about. It's easy to speak in generalities about not contributing to the community, and selfishly using the area's benefits while not respecting its history, culture, etc. But can you be specific?

For example, what if a person liked the area's train access and its rent, or park access, etc., and pretty much minded his own business, but had different tastes than the other residents (for example, perhaps this guy likes Starbucks coffee or Subway sandwiches), and happens to shop at those places. He's not changing the neighborhood actively, but if enough of him move in the nabe will probably shift a bit to accomodate said tastes. To top it off, this guy expects to get a promotion in three years and upon doing so intends to buy a house in Jersey.

Is this guy in violation? I'm not trying to be sarcastic--I'm interested to know what a lot of these generalities often discussed really mean.

My case study is Soho where I lived for 27 years and where I went through basically every phase of the "gentrification" process both as a renter and a homeowner, as an artist and an activist. Of course there are differences, this was a case where the displaced population was industrial and the shift in the demographic was financial not racial.

That said, I suppose I was a pioneer, but (as has been pointed out elsewhere on this board), that wasn't how I saw myself, I was a kid out of school coming back to my hometown (I was born & raised in NYC) and I wanted a place where I could live, do my work and support myself on tips. I didn't care that there wasn't a dry cleaner, I didn't need one and as far as food went; i had a bicycle (still do) and i worked in restaurants.

Over time I became very active in the community. We fought against unfair evictions of artists, in support of the landmark status for the cast iron district and against a redistricting plan (we lost) that eventually paved the way for the real estate sector to take over both Soho and the LES. For the most part no one had any money to speak of, there was however an INCREDIBLE amount of sweat equity that went into creating the Soho that became so ripe for the picking by real estate developers.

I inherited enough money to buy a loft and I saw the whole microcosm of the gentrification process happen in my own building. What was once an artist co-op (you had to be certified by the city to obtain the live work status necessary to legally live in a manufacturing district) over time turned into something very similar to an upper eastside building (and I left)

Along the way I had the pleasure of having as my neighbors people who were attracted to the size of the lofts but cared nothing for the community itself. After moving in, pushing to refinance ever grander building renovations, they would move out when they had babies and they felt past the "bohemian" stage of their lives. At a certain point Soho was no longer Soho; the artists who were renting got pushed out by the bankers as the galleries were pushed out by the tourism and high end flagship stores.

There is no way to stem the tide of affluence that flows outward from the heart of manhattan. As I said, I grew up in this city and have watched this my entire life. And I am not suggesting that every Starbucks lover on their path of upward mobility is an evil-doer. Actually I found that the investment banker who chose to live in Soho in its earlier stages far more responsible to the community than some artists who at a certain point made decisions with their wallets that were less in the interest of the whole (and what they once believed in) and more with an eye towards "cashing out".

I am simply saying that if you look around, and you see things going in a direction that you don't like (which I assume was the point of the Young Snitch's originating post) that you join with like minded people to actively preserve what you care about. We did try that in Soho, and I feel we slowed the tide a bit, but unfortunately artists by nature tend to be a bit isolated and ultimately anything that takes them away from their work isn't worth it; eventually we pick up, move somewhere else that gives us the space to do our work and that inspires us.

I am in no way bitter; as hard as I fought it, I was fortunate to benefit from the whole process, but I am very sensitive to what impact I will have on the new community that I wish to call home. My consciousness was raised as a result of my experience and I suppose that at the risk of sounding like a preachy old fart, I am trying to share that here.

i don't have any rules, forgive me if it seems as if i do,
but to answer your last question first: the "wrong" way of gentrification is the same as the "wrong" way of anything else:
without responsibility or consciousness, strictly for the benefit of one sector without any concern for the whole.

this thread started as a (humourous, i believe) appeal to landlords to not rent to certain "types", i was simply suggesting that instead of "not doing something" to ward off change one gets active in support of the direction you want something to go (which may or may not appeal to my sense of what should be)

i don't think there is a mold for what makes someone a "good" member of a community, certainly not the color of their skin, the size of their bank account nor their occupation. The guy in your scenario is just passing through, he is not part of any solution, i am not sure that necessarily makes him part of the problem

really i just believe there are things that one can do that enforce a sense of community and solidarity amoung neighbors and that in the long run, communities are served well by this sort of activity no matter where they eventually evolve to.

you can't stop change, you can influence its direction

(and if you read what i wrote, i don't necessarily think artists make model community members, we tend to be (as a means of survival), a rather self involved lot)

Neene, understood. I agree with the notion of trying to influence the direction of change rather than stopping it, and I'd add "tolerance for others" to your definition of what makes a good community member. I personally tend to take an attitude of, "As long as you're not breaking the law or making yourself a general nuisance to others, feel free to come into the area and do as you please," but that's just my own personal opinion.

At the end of the day, you cannot stop affluent people moving into whatever neighborhoods they desire. So the debate seems pointless really. What are you gonna do? Hold affluent people in PH at gunpoint and force them not to drink designer lattes?

Gentrification is ALWAYS going to happen. I love how I can move into Park Slope and have some of the old-timers say how great it is to have a woman of color in the neighborhood, ignoring the fact that I'm just as much of a yuppie as the influx of whites whom they resent.... :roll:

mypasswordwontwork wrote:
Gentrification is ALWAYS going to happen.

Not so sure about that. Wouldn't take too much of a recession at this leveraged point for things to start flowing in the other direction, and usually it's last in first out. Any one of a number of factors could begin a new cycle of urban decay. Imagine what would happen to PH in a few years if inflation, interest rates, and unemployment headed towards 10%, financial services started to seriously relocate to London and Shanghai, taxes went up to pay for the war and climate-change insurance, the rate of immigration slowed, and consumer goods and resources rose in price with a rising Yuan and Euro.

Doctorj is right on this one, so long as we define gentrification as an increase in the property values and affluence of a neighborhood, not just as "change". In the 70s and 80s, NY definitely experienced reverse gentrification, and like Doctorj said, it's not so farfetched to imagine it happening again. In fact, you can pretty much count on a reversal of gentrification happening at some point in the near future (and then a reversal of that, and so on). All the more reason I've always said we should enjoy it while it lasts.

neene wrote:
after going to a number of community meetings it is my experience that the long term residents of our communities are the ones who are taking a leadership role in trying to get something done about drugs, guns, crime, etc. not the "gentrifiers"

Perhaps then it's a difference of terminology. To me, someone who is trying to get something done about drugs, guns, crime, etc., is by definition a gentrifier. #-o And to think we could have shortened this whole thread by just defining our terms.

mypasswordwontwork wrote:
America is Capitalist HQ of the world; gentrification is a by-product of that. Unless the nation goes Communist, I do not see gentrification coming to an end.

I find this hubris incredible. Every other empire has risen and fallen; why not this one? And even if NY remains the capitalist HQ for a long time to come, despite the current trends in global finance, we should expect occasional decades like the 30s and 70s characterized by economic contraction and depopulation of the city. I don't see the phenomenon of gentrification disappearing from the face of the planet, nor change in NY neighborhoods ceasing, but at no time and in no place in history has it been all in one direction for a sustained period of time.

mypasswordwontwork wrote: Oh, and it all belongs to native Americans really anyway. So by rights the whole damn lot of us should get the hell out and give the land back to the native Americans.

I'm glad you bring that up; it's worth remembering that the city was ultimately built on theft and genocide, even if that wrong will never be righted.

Neene and JJB, no offense taken. I don't care to get hung up on semantics, but to me, I have always associated the word with reduction of crime, restoration of housing and infrastructure, decreased drug use, homelessness and prostitution, improvement of schools, creation of block associations, emergence of trendy cafes, bookstores and the like, and of course, the influx of middle and upper class artists and professionals into formerly poor or working class neighborhoods. Hence, for the most part I had a positive association towards the word.

Of course, if you consider the word to inherently convey a negative meaning, then of course the concept of building a community will be contrary to the concept of gentrification. However, I'm certain that not all people view gentrification in the negative light that you are associating with the word. If there's no ambiguity about the word's connotations, and it's by definition a negative, then what the hell are we fighting about???