Why are some people against gentrification?

[AGA]

It turns dumps into nice areas. Why are some people against it?

[Ferguson97]

It pushes out lower-income residents.

[RINO Tom]

It pushes out lower-income residents.

This ... it’s a basic liberal position - opposing something because it disproportionately hurts the lower classes.  Pretty ironic, given its supporters and benefactors...

[Ferguson97]

It pushes out lower-income residents.

This ... it’s a basic liberal position - opposing something because it disproportionately hurts the lower classes.  Pretty ironic, given its supporters and benefactors...

Wealthy white liberals often act more like wealthy whites than liberals.

I don't think an individual is bad for participating in gentrification, everyone should do what's in their own best interest, I just object when some people twist themselves into a pretzel trying to justify it.

[Averroës Nix]

If you believe that relationships and place are important to a person’s life, it's a quality of life problem when people are priced out of the places they inhabit. (Many of our rulers appear to believe otherwise.)

It’s also becoming more difficult for the dislocated to find places in the United States where they can continue to make a living without being overwhelmed by the costs.

On the latter point, the fallout of dislocation grows worse as the cascade of high housing costs affects more neighborhoods and more metros. There are now entire states in which the median home value is near or above half a million dollars. What was a problem among the poor a decade ago has become a problem for large segments of the middle class.

Much of the country is no longer for regular people in all of their diversity: It’s been claimed by an affluent monoculture. This isn't about turning blighted, crime-ridden ghettos into "nice areas" with microbreweries and yoga studios.

[AGA]

It’s also becoming more difficult for the dislocated to find places in the United States where they can continue to make a living without being overwhelmed by the costs.

This would be less of a problem if it weren't for NIMBYs.

[parochial boy]

It’s also becoming more difficult for the dislocated to find places in the United States where they can continue to make a living without being overwhelmed by the costs.

This would be less of a problem if it weren't for NIMBYs.

Blaming NIMBYism is muddying the waters in the same way as blaming high healthcare costs on tort law. It wasn't NIMBYs who created an economy where wealth and opportunity is increasingly restricted to an increasingly concentrated educated class in a small network of well connected cities; nor did they provide the fuel to the "investment property" bubble; nor create the myth that the only way the housing market can function is through as free a market as possible; and nor are they responsible for the severe shortage of social housing that almost every major city suffers.

The problem is the way the economy and the housing market is structured - the impact of a few people who don't want a new appartment block in their neighbourhood is peanuts in comparison.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It turns dumps into nice areas.

Sometimes. Other times it turns surprisingly good corner stores into bakeries that are only open ten hours a week and only sell miniature cupcakes. (Yes, this is a real example I've actually encountered.)

[dead0man]

the thread where I ask:what's worse, white flight or gentrification?

[DC Al Fine]

It’s also becoming more difficult for the dislocated to find places in the United States where they can continue to make a living without being overwhelmed by the costs.

This would be less of a problem if it weren't for NIMBYs.

Blaming NIMBYism is muddying the waters in the same way as blaming high healthcare costs on tort law. It wasn't NIMBYs who created an economy where wealth and opportunity is increasingly restricted to an increasingly concentrated educated class in a small network of well connected cities; nor did they provide the fuel to the "investment property" bubble; nor create the myth that the only way the housing market can function is through as free a market as possible; and nor are they responsible for the severe shortage of social housing that almost every major city suffers.

The problem is the way the economy and the housing market is structured - the impact of a few people who don't want a new appartment block in their neighbourhood is peanuts in comparison.

As someone with a fair number of real estate development clients, including at least one that has tried to build inexpensive working class housing, I dispute the assertion that most major metros real estate markets in North America are particularly free.

If you have to spend tons of money and a ludicrous amount of time just to get approval to replace some single family dwellings with small apartment buildings and townhouses, that will have an huge impact on housing supply and prices, just like lack of social housing.

[parochial boy]

It’s also becoming more difficult for the dislocated to find places in the United States where they can continue to make a living without being overwhelmed by the costs.

This would be less of a problem if it weren't for NIMBYs.

Blaming NIMBYism is muddying the waters in the same way as blaming high healthcare costs on tort law. It wasn't NIMBYs who created an economy where wealth and opportunity is increasingly restricted to an increasingly concentrated educated class in a small network of well connected cities; nor did they provide the fuel to the "investment property" bubble; nor create the myth that the only way the housing market can function is through as free a market as possible; and nor are they responsible for the severe shortage of social housing that almost every major city suffers.

The problem is the way the economy and the housing market is structured - the impact of a few people who don't want a new appartment block in their neighbourhood is peanuts in comparison.

As someone with a fair number of real estate development clients, including at least one that has tried to build inexpensive working class housing, I dispute the assertion that most major metros real estate markets in North America are particularly free.

If you have to spend tons of money and a ludicrous amount of time just to get approval to replace some single family dwellings with small apartment buildings and townhouses, that will have an huge impact on housing supply and prices, just like lack of social housing.

I meant to say free market with regards to existing housing stock, rather than new construction (including home improvements). Even then, I think the impact of strict planning permissions laws is pretty minor relative to the structural nature of the market, especially in major metros. Lots of the world's power cities have been undergoing construction booms in recent years, without it really putting a dent into housing markets.

Even if you can put up all the towers you want, you still have the fundamental underlying structures that drive people to live in big cities; to invest in property as a form of retirement provision, or of money laundering; as well as the flaws that exist in, say, the regulation of the mortgage or rental markets. (and of course, I'd even argue that stringent regulations on the supply of new houses are a result of the failures of the privatised model for existing housing stock, as property owners have both the incentive and the political ability to prop up the value of their properties)

[jaymichaud]

Because it's impossible to buy a property in some Canadian cities that's not under $1M

[John Dule]

I meant to say free market with regards to existing housing stock, rather than new construction (including home improvements). Even then, I think the impact of strict planning permissions laws is pretty minor relative to the structural nature of the market, especially in major metros. Lots of the world's power cities have been undergoing construction booms in recent years, without it really putting a dent into housing markets.

Even if you can put up all the towers you want, you still have the fundamental underlying structures that drive people to live in big cities; to invest in property as a form of retirement provision, or of money laundering; as well as the flaws that exist in, say, the regulation of the mortgage or rental markets. (and of course, I'd even argue that stringent regulations on the supply of new houses are a result of the failures of the privatised model for existing housing stock, as property owners have both the incentive and the political ability to prop up the value of their properties)

I won't speak for any other cities, but in San Francisco, the "construction boom" to which you refer has been mostly limited to a few areas in downtown, and the things being built are luxury condominiums. This is because that particular type of housing isn't affected by rent control laws, which means that it's one of the few ways that developers can guarantee a return on investment. Huge swaths of the city are single-family, two-story homes that were built in the 50s. Why? Because HOAs and zoning laws prevent building structures over 40 feet tall outside of downtown. There is obviously demand for housing, and the main reason why supply has not risen to meet that demand is because it is being bogged down by obscene expenses in permits, zoning, and HOA lawsuits.

[parochial boy]

I meant to say free market with regards to existing housing stock, rather than new construction (including home improvements). Even then, I think the impact of strict planning permissions laws is pretty minor relative to the structural nature of the market, especially in major metros. Lots of the world's power cities have been undergoing construction booms in recent years, without it really putting a dent into housing markets.

Even if you can put up all the towers you want, you still have the fundamental underlying structures that drive people to live in big cities; to invest in property as a form of retirement provision, or of money laundering; as well as the flaws that exist in, say, the regulation of the mortgage or rental markets. (and of course, I'd even argue that stringent regulations on the supply of new houses are a result of the failures of the privatised model for existing housing stock, as property owners have both the incentive and the political ability to prop up the value of their properties)

I won't speak for any other cities, but in San Francisco, the "construction boom" to which you refer has been mostly limited to a few areas in downtown, and the things being built are luxury condominiums. This is because that particular type of housing isn't affected by rent control laws, which means that it's one of the few ways that developers can guarantee a return on investment. Huge swaths of the city are single-family, two-story homes that were built in the 50s. Why? Because HOAs and zoning laws prevent building structures over 40 feet tall outside of downtown. There is obviously demand for housing, and the main reason why supply has not risen to meet that demand is because it is being bogged down by obscene expenses in permits, zoning, and HOA lawsuits.

I’m not sure you can put the blame solely on rent controls there to be honest. Even in London, a city that has no rent controls, the construction boom has meant luxury apartments in desirable areas – it’s a function of how the property market works over and above rent control or construction restrictions.

Even then, I’m not saying that property owners opposed to construction in their backyards has no effect, just that it is far from being the most important. You could let people build what they wanted to in San Francisco and it wouldn’t change the underlying factors that are the economic power of the city and wider metro as well as an almost entirely privatised property market and a society where property ownership is tied to wealth and where property is used as a form of investment good. Which, as I mentioned, means that existing property owners have a strong incentive to protect the value of their investment.

As an example, look at the comparison of Geneva and Zurich. Two cities renowned for being expensive, with similar economic profiles, similar restrictions on new developments (including on tall buildings) and similar rent control laws. Yet, Zurich has managed to keep its rental market far more under control than Geneva (there are districts in Zurich where rental prices are around $1750 per month, which sounds a lot, but is less than 20% of median household income in Switzerland, for a 800 sq foot apartment, the cheapest areas in Geneva are around 20% more expensive). The only difference is that one third of Zurich’s housing stock is social or co-operative housing, three times more than Geneva has. Which means both more people paying below market rents, which then takes pressure off the rest of the market. Or even better, look at Germany, which has a very low level of home ownership by international standards, but rents in major desirable cities like Berlin are a fraction of what they in other similarly desirable cities in North America or Europe – because Germany has a less centralised economy, less cut throat property market and despite those same restrictions on development or with rent control.

[Former President tack50]

It pushes out lower-income residents.

To be honest, wouldn't those lower income residents actually benefit since their houses would be raising in price?

It sucks for renters but for homeowners it is a very good thing (and to be honest most older people should be homeowners).

In fact the government should probably encourage homeownership, especially for the lower income people.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

It pushes out lower-income residents.

To be honest, wouldn't those lower income residents actually benefit since their houses would be raising in price?

It sucks for renters but for homeowners it is a very good thing (and to be honest most older people should be homeowners).

In fact the government should probably encourage homeownership, especially for the lower income people.

Well, the fact is most of these lower-income residents are renters.

I agree that homeownership should probably be encouraged, but that is another matter.

[dead0man]

it's hard to get a home loan (even a small one) if you can't keep a job for more than 8 months


(a large part of the housing crisis a decade ago was because poor people were given home loans everyone involved knew they were going to be unable to pay and then packaging and "selling" those loans to each other in an epic game of Hot Potato)

[Middle-aged Europe]

Because the rent is too damn high.

[Velasco]

It turns dumps into nice areas. Why are some people against it?

Because some "dumps" can be fascinating places with a vibrant cultural life and certain "nice areas" are theme parks devoid of substance. Because expelling the population from downtown areas erases the historical memory of cities and kills their spirit

[Ferguson97]

It pushes out lower-income residents.

To be honest, wouldn't those lower income residents actually benefit since their houses would be raising in price?

It sucks for renters but for homeowners it is a very good thing (and to be honest most older people should be homeowners).

In fact the government should probably encourage homeownership, especially for the lower income people.

Lower-income people tend to be renters, not homeowners.

[John Dule]

I meant to say free market with regards to existing housing stock, rather than new construction (including home improvements). Even then, I think the impact of strict planning permissions laws is pretty minor relative to the structural nature of the market, especially in major metros. Lots of the world's power cities have been undergoing construction booms in recent years, without it really putting a dent into housing markets.

Even if you can put up all the towers you want, you still have the fundamental underlying structures that drive people to live in big cities; to invest in property as a form of retirement provision, or of money laundering; as well as the flaws that exist in, say, the regulation of the mortgage or rental markets. (and of course, I'd even argue that stringent regulations on the supply of new houses are a result of the failures of the privatised model for existing housing stock, as property owners have both the incentive and the political ability to prop up the value of their properties)

I won't speak for any other cities, but in San Francisco, the "construction boom" to which you refer has been mostly limited to a few areas in downtown, and the things being built are luxury condominiums. This is because that particular type of housing isn't affected by rent control laws, which means that it's one of the few ways that developers can guarantee a return on investment. Huge swaths of the city are single-family, two-story homes that were built in the 50s. Why? Because HOAs and zoning laws prevent building structures over 40 feet tall outside of downtown. There is obviously demand for housing, and the main reason why supply has not risen to meet that demand is because it is being bogged down by obscene expenses in permits, zoning, and HOA lawsuits.

I’m not sure you can put the blame solely on rent controls there to be honest. Even in London, a city that has no rent controls, the construction boom has meant luxury apartments in desirable areas – it’s a function of how the property market works over and above rent control or construction restrictions.

Even then, I’m not saying that property owners opposed to construction in their backyards has no effect, just that it is far from being the most important. You could let people build what they wanted to in San Francisco and it wouldn’t change the underlying factors that are the economic power of the city and wider metro as well as an almost entirely privatised property market and a society where property ownership is tied to wealth and where property is used as a form of investment good. Which, as I mentioned, means that existing property owners have a strong incentive to protect the value of their investment.

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the inherent connection between private property ownership and the situation that San Francisco is in. The two are far from being inextricably linked.

To clarify, I am not saying that rent control is the primary issue here. I will say, however, that HOA and zoning regulations are. An example: Let's say you own a house in San Francisco. Odds are it was built in the 50s or 60s, it's likely no more than two stories tall, and it's probably designed as a small single-family home. Now, you've seen this house's value double (and possibly triple) over the past few years as the demand for housing in the city increases. But here's the thing-- the land your house is built on is not being used in the most efficient possible way. Given the amount of demand in the market, that land would be put to much better use if it was converted-- along with other nearby houses-- into a multi-story medium-income apartment complex.

The trouble is, even though the value of your house would go up significantly if this possibility was open to developers, the HOAs would never allow it to happen. It would block somebody else's sunlight, or somebody's view, or conflict with the city zoning regulation that limits houses to 40 feet in height. And so for the past 70 years, the suburban sprawl of San Francisco has been trapped in a state of gradual decay. If these homeowners had the option to live in a modern, comfortable apartment or condo (in the process selling their old house to a developer at an enormous profit), I guarantee you many of them would jump at the chance. So no, while I agree that "existing property owners have a strong incentive to protect their investments," I don't agree that protecting their investments in this case is the same as keeping the status quo. All of the land in San Francisco is worth much more than the price people pay for it these days, simply because regulations prevent the market from using that land in the most efficient possible way.

Again, I don't see how any of this has to do with the issues you raise about a privatized property market. Are you saying that this is simply an inevitability of such a market? Personally, I think that just by looking at the skyline of San Francisco-- a small cluster of towers surrounded by miles upon miles of short little houses-- you start to realize that something must be different here than in the many major metropolitan areas that have packed themselves with skyscrapers in recent years. The difference is partially geographical, but it has far more to do with government regulation than the system of property ownership itself.

[ingemann]

I have been gentrified out of the area I grew up, I still think it's a net positive. This idea that it replace "vibrant" places is bovine fecal matter. Vibrant in this context means run down and crime ridden. The few great local restaurant and bakeries in these areas are usual a remnant of the pre-"vibrancy" era and was already dying before the area was gentrified or it was a mjaor vehicle in the area being gentrified.