Nothing like a break from a forum... or more like, nothing like not having time for it 'cause of damn classes.
No offense, but in my mind I am picturing you as a hot-headed 21 year-old undergrad....
I am a Grad student, who was introduced to gentrification several years ago in an undergrad class.
What's the point of this thread, other than to provide a soapbox for LAz to berate those who disagree with him? There are very few of us here who are experts in Geography, Sociology, Urban Studies, etc. Yet, LAz seems to want to engage in heavy debate on these topics, beyond the depth of most UT members (though it seems there are a few in this thread who know more than a thing or two). Isn't that type of discussion more suited to a duel in an academic journal?
I feel ya man. I really do. The point of the topic was supposed to be about neighborhoods in Toronto alone, but it kinda blew over into gentrification itself.
And when it comes to gentrification, we've had no where near the intensity of it as many American cities
While Toronto has not had some of the ferocity, should I say Revanchism, it was nonetheless one of the places which had gentrification early on. Regardless of where one goes, there are parallels of gentrification. The process might be a bit harsher or a bit lighter in some places, but it nonetheless happens and there are common things in gentrification, regardless of where it is. Ley, a very influential guy in the literature, has noted that tens of thousands have been displaced by gentrification throughout Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.
I'd like to hear Laz's view on this phenomenon in respect to his gentrification position.
Bear with me, 'cause for organization of the post, I will leave that at the bottom.
If you've read more than one scholarly work on gentrification, surely you've realized by now that virtually all of the negatives associated with gentrification are created by scholars...not identified, created.
Never have I encountered such a ludicrous statement. Someone talking about the literature who clearly has not read much if any of it. Qualitative and quantitative research over the decades, and the subsequent publications in both countless journal articles and books is so overwhelming that anyone who even bothers to scratch the surface of it will be amazed to read such a statement that you wrote.
First off, renewing an area, which is at the heart of so-called gentrification can not, in and of itself be viewed as a bad thing.
It all depends with what lens you view it. If you want to take a narrow lens, and look at only certain aspects, then yeah, it can be great. But if we are going to limit ourselves like that, we will fail to see the big picture.
By what rationale could this be bad?
Why don't you look up what could be bad, instead of narrowing yourself to the developer's rhetoric? Are you a developer? The bad things are very big. Here are a few points....
1) Mixed income might sound nice. But think of the original community in question. What is happening to them? No way in bloody hell are you going to see the entire community be compensated or even allowed to remain where they were. The community is uprooted. Now, wait, am I crazy, if it is mixed income then what am I talking about? Here is the trick to understand where I am coming from... it is not mixed income for all those people. Only a fraction of those people who were there originally are actually left. Usually mixed income allocated ten percent to the poor. That is only 10 percent of the new development. Let suppose that density remains the same, then where do the following 90% go? Has this not occurred to you? Further, what complicates this is that it often goes way under 10%, down to 5%. Why? Because these former residents compete for the new stuff with other poor who apply. It is not like the old neighborhood can be there again, only some of the old residents can manage to get into the 10%. So consider that closer to 5 percent of the former residents stay. Those lucky enough to stay, of course. And so the question comes down to what is wrong with displacing 90+% of a community? The question answers itself.
2) Good old mixed income eh? Many promoters of gentrification have time and again said that mixed income should be spread all out over the city to work, in order to not have high concentration of poor. What is the problem here then? Well, the problem is that it does not happen. It has not happened. It will not happen. We do not see the poor being moved to rich peoples communities. It's a one way process, where poor get displaced from their neighborhoods. If we are to support mixed income strategies, then we could at least follow the lead of gentrification supports, and start allocating space for the poor in the rich neighborhoods. As said, has not happened, is not happening, and will not happen. Mixed income is a joke, whose end effect is displacement. Nice.
3) Three strikes you're out. Lets get you a quote from a punk who I mentioned before, Lance Freeman. He, a big supporter of gentrification, seems to have come to his senses lately. Lets see what he said. While saying that redevelopment is good, he says "there are, however, significant potential downsides to this revitalization, including the loss of affordable housing, conflict between newcomers and more established residents, and resentment stemming from feelings of irrelevance; the neighborhood improvements are not for them." So, this rat Freeman has finally moved towards looking at gentrification as a process whose negative effects have to be dampened. The rat had finally come clean, somewhat at least. There is so much evidence how this is a harmful process, that he can't even sit there and say that it is something from which everyone benefits from... simply because it isn't!
4) you struck out bud. So I'll give you strike four. It's on me. here's some stuff to enlighten you, and that previous dude.
"The eviction of critical perspectives from Gentrification Research" by Tom Slater.
http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/tslater/evicton.pdf
Enjoy.
In Toronto we have rent control for existing tenants (no control when vacancies occur). This protects established tenants from facing huge rent increases that they could not otherwise sustain, merely because an area has become trendy.
I think that it depends where exactly, and to what extent. Rent does increase and people do get displaced. Further, what I may have mentioned before, one does not have to increase rent in order to push someone out. People can be pushed out. Ghettos are created when the landlords decide not to invest in their build environment anymore. This, and other actions, which can go as extreme as arson. There is a word for this. But how would you know about it, as you are not interested in the literature. Look it up, the word's Winkling.
apparently and those moving in to restore those lovely old houses are evil gentrifiers seeking to take advantage of the poor immigrant who doesn't know any better since he wants to leave for the 'burbs.
Hey man, don't paint me like that. I said that the process is bad. I did not say that individual people are bad. Indeed, the early gentrifiers, which you seem to be describing here were like that. They were people who were looking for freedom and rights. They were people who were trying to escape injustices. Women, gays, and others. Disenfranchised people. Some scholars have said that these people are often looking for an alternative to the damn suburbs, and structures that have been imposed on them. I feel their pain. I really do.
So where is the problem? I'll tell you. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of gentrification nowadays is not about some pioneer gentrifier going into a building, breaking is sweat to live in the place. Who are the gentrifiers nowadays for the most part? They are developers, big multi million - er, should I say billion, tycoonists who care only for one thing - increasing their piles of cash. And naturally, the city is going to support them, as the city is their slave. The city is the whore of the rich, as it needs their tax money. You know, nowadays with the free market economy we can't keep industry in the city. Things like manufacturing go to places like the tyrannical regime of china because their slaves, er, repressed people earn only like 40 cents and hour.
Laz argues against gentrification, and in another one he thinks we should sever transportation links to beyond the 416 to discourage too many people from traveling for work. Where are these people supposed to work, if run-down areas can't be moved upscale, if condo developers can't buy property to build on, if money can't move around freely?
Hey, we can not just cut off links beyond 416. That is not possible, and never will be possible, However, we should strive to go towards something like that, to stop supporting suburbanization. Taking one step in this direction would be huge, for sustainable development.
One does not have to do this by gentrifying the people out. Why must that happen? It shouldn't. Those neighborhoods should themselves improve. We should not displace the poor and make them a problem for another community. What is the alternative? Well, this is really debateable, and beyond the scope of this discussion. But, stopping low density suburban sprawl would be a great step in the right direction!
Forgive me, I had to trim this down, for I got this message... 1. The text that you have entered is too long. Please shorten it to 10000 characters long.
