gentrification

[ms. chevious]

besides all the economic and social problems with gentrification, the present venture to tear down the two buildings diagonally behind mine is g-damn annoying! every time a wall falls, or when they start digging out the foundation, it shakes the foundation of my building, and thus my apartment. if only i could evaporate that backhoe with lazer vision. then i could also evaporate the chintzy cinder-block condos that will most certainly be put up in the newly-cleared lots.

[DaysWithoutEnd]

Better to let the city crumble?

Don't get me started...
:rolleyes:

[back2vinyl]

Better to let the city crumble?

Don't get me started...
:rolleyes:

Yeah, compared to what's happening in, say, Price Hill for instance, I'll take gentrification.

[Fernie]

Ugh. I am sick of condos going up in older neighborhoods in Minneapolis and the suburbs. Now my favorite record store is being torn down to put up condos. WTF! Not to mention the condos that now look into my backyard.

The gentrification of Minneapolis is going too far. They are tearing down an old neighborhood in the SW part of the city because it is near the yuppies of a suburb. It is not a bad neighborhood, but it is just not as affluent as their burb, so they must fix it?

I guess resistance is futile.

[Phreon]

In our inclusive society, why are we still calling it GENTrification? Doesn't this unfairly place men in an unfavorable light? We should either call it Womynification, Eunichrification, Hermaphrotrification or Trification in an effort promote gender equity.

That will be all,

Phreon

[yoshomon]

As if "letting the city crumble" and gentrification are the only two possibilities...

[back2vinyl]

As if "letting the city crumble" and gentrification are the only two possibilities...

So, are you going to name some other viable options, or just leave us hanging?

[Vodka-7]

Gentrification is playing havoc with my drinking habits. In VanCity we used to have two or three bars per block in the Downtown Eastside area--originally occupied by loggers, miners, fishermen, and the usual drunks and bums of a primary resource-based city. Now, they're being turned into boutiques, boarded up or replaced with glass towers and ubiquitous iron gates.

[janelane]

in a nondescript strip center in minneapolis there is a giant tree that used to be in the front yard of my (relatively old) mom's asparagus farm house. they bulldozed it to make way for a highway. which is great, because at least they stopped spraying DDT all over the place. yay, go our government!

[ms. chevious]

gentrification is different from just renovation - gentrification implies that the new construction has a higher rent/cost. being more expensive than the previous buildings/apartments, the "gentility" moves in b/c the usual residents of the community can no longer afford to live in their own neighborhood....and a lot of these buildings aren't "crumbling" to begin with. more profit is to be made in tearing down the existing property and throw up (in both senses) a crappy cinder-block condo clone, thus making it sellable to wealthier yuppie types w/more disposable income. now, my brother the uber-republican city planner, even agrees with me that these condo clones are shoddily built and will themselves crumble in 50 or so years (besides being ugly architecture).


providing equal city services to poor and gentrified neighborhoods would be one way to keep the city from "crumbling" in the first place. or having more strict and consistent rental property inspections. or having more quality affordable housing offered by the CHA.

[indigobunting]

In our inclusive society, why are we still calling it GENTrification? Doesn't this unfairly place men in an unfavorable light? We should either call it Womynification, Eunichrification, Hermaphrotrification or Trification in an effort promote gender equity.

That will be all,

Phreon
Hermaphrotrification? WTF Eunichrification? this is hell on earth and does not even need to be a written word or even spoken. Pure hell, I tell you. Wow what a way to promote equality!?

[X-Ray]

every time a wall falls, or when they start digging out the foundation, it shakes the foundation of my building, and thus my apartment.
Hope same thing doesn't happen to that happened to Calla!
Calla Thread (http://woxy.com/boards/showthread.php?t=26840&highlight=calla)

[BigSugar]

"gentrification": The whiny, pussy, liberal word for "fixing shit that's broke".

[Dumb Hick]

mmmmmm whineeey pusssyy.

[BigSugar]

mmmmmm whineeey pusssyy.

is that anything like a squeeky queef? LOL!

[markalot]

bigheaptalk'emsmack

Insensitive to native americans, boy?

[BigSugar]

Insensitive to native americans, boy?

gender-slander!?? i thought you knew better.

lesson in fixing shit: fixed shit is more expensive than broke shit. if it costs me an extra 10K per year to paint shit, exterminate shit, re-build shit and otherwise make stinky-shit into a garden, then i'm gonna pass that expense onto the people getting the benefit of that new shit.

and that is why the term "gentrification" is bullshit.

[DaysWithoutEnd]

gentrification is different from just renovation - gentrification implies that the new construction has a higher rent/cost.

providing equal city services to poor and gentrified neighborhoods would be one way to keep the city from "crumbling" in the first place. or having more strict and consistent rental property inspections. or having more quality affordable housing offered by the CHA.

Yes, they are different. However, gentrified doesn't necessarily mean new construction. In Dayton for example, the historic Oregon District could be considered gentrified, but the houses date back to the 1880's. In fact, under the right conditions, renovation is just as likely to lead to gentrification as new construction.

Regarding crumbling, it's well known that the 'bad' neighborhoods simply cost a lot more money to the City than the 'good' neighborhoods. There's only so much a city can do to preserve a declining area without having a huge influx of new cash.

And if that happens, you naturally want a good return on the investment, which means higher property values for a longer period of time, which means you need residents who will maintain their property, which usually means having a higher level of household income than you started with. Thus, gentrification.

Of course, one of the biggest signs of a declining neighborhood is the percentage of rental housing. The more there is, the worse off the area will usually be. That's why there's a huge push towards homeownership.

The problem with "affordable" housing, at least in Ohio, is that it is usually concentrated in areas that are already marginalized. However, in some parts of the country, the county government will require ALL new housing developments to include affordable housing. In other words, if you want to build a new subdivision with dozens of $500k homes, you need throw in a few (5-10%) homes in the $100k range.

This helps create more diverse neighborhoods and reduce the concentration of poverty in urban areas. This is important, because poverty (at least in this country) is not just a function of being poor, but of the kinds of communities we live in.

In conclusion, while gentrification can be upsetting in the short run, it can be beneficial in the long run when it is part of a comprehensive policy of housing development and homeownership, which is sorely lacking in Ohio.

Thank you. ;)

[pacoforgin]

it is practically impossible to have any redevelopment or new construction in an older neighborhood without having gentrification. gentrification implies displacement, and whenever something is built that will raise the property values in a neighborhood people will be displace. however, many Community Development Corporation (CDCs) work with the local resident to redevelop buildings in a neighborhood that will be affordable to the current residents to minimize the effects of gentrification. An example of this would be ReSTOC in Over the Rhine, but there are other example in almost every city in the country.

[yoshomon]

"gentrification": The whiny, pussy, liberal word for "fixing shit that's broke".

Are you really that out of touch?

[Jeff_in_Datyon]

Yes, they are different. However, gentrified doesn't necessarily mean new construction. In Dayton for example, the historic Oregon District could be considered gentrified, but the houses date back to the 1880's.

The dates are a bit off...most of the Oregon actually dates to before the before 1870, actualy alot before the Civil War, with the oldest streets dating to the 1840s, which makes it one of the oldest inner-city urban neighborhoods in Ohio, perhaps the Midwest.

The Oregon, or what used to be called, in its pre-gentrified days, "Burns-Jackson" is a classic case of gentrification. The former appalachian residents where dispaced. The last remnant of the old Appalachian neighborhood to go was the "Southern Belle" tavern, which was still popular w. former residents who would drive in to the place even after they left the neighborhood....it was finally located to next to Canal Street tavern, and is actually somewhat yuppie now.

A sucessfull case of neighborhood conservation without wholesale gentrification is the Butchertown neighborhood in Louisville

[justa bill]

The dates are a bit off...most of the Oregon actually dates to before the before 1870, actualy alot before the Civil War, with the oldest streets dating to the 1840s, which makes it one of the oldest inner-city urban neighborhoods in Ohio, perhaps the Midwest.

oldest in Ohio... the midwest?

Check your history Jeff_in_Dayton.

Everything in Cincinnati south of at least 12th street was an urban area predating 1870. and 1840. Heck, DAYTON Street in Cincinnati is for the most part pre Civil War. And it lays pretty far outside of the origina of Cincinnati. (http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/pages/-6743-/)

My home in particular was built in 1859 (or 1853 depending on how you read the cornerstone) and it's "way up" north of 14th Street.

and actually, today, Sunday May 22, is the first time Findley Market has been open on Sunday for 150 years. it's been a market since the late 1700's and it's current market house has been there since 1855... link (http://www.loc.gov/bicentennial/propage/OH/oh-1_h_chabot1.html)

news story (http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/05/19/findlay.html)

of course, the Native Peoples were here long before that... (http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/north_america/cincinnati/history.htm) but all their earthworks in the Cincinnati basin were long ago leveled and built upon... :[

And Cincinnati isn't even the oldest in Ohio I pretty sure...

--

To the main discussion, the fact is most people in America missuse the term "gentrifaction". The term started in London in the 1970's where the wealthy, ruling class, gentry started buying small homes in what HAD ALWAYS BEEN WORKING CLASS NEIGHBORHOODS. They bought these homes due to their proximity to established wealthy areas such as the original Hyde Park. In the process, they displaced the poorer residents that had been there for centuries.

In America, most people confuse revitalization with "genrification". Exclusively low income neighborhoods located in the middle of urban centers is actually a farily recent development. From the time they were built, the centers of most American cities where full of middle class working stiffs like you and I. The kind of people who could afford to buy newspapers, or today type on message boards...

If you're familiar with Cincinnati, Mount Adams for the most part is an example of gentrification. It had always been home to mostly Irish and Catholic working class families. Now only the very welthy can afford to live there.

Downtown Cincinnati/OTR is an example of revitalization. These neighborhoods were home to people of every class for over a century. And that's what they are becoming again. There is marker-rate homes for sell, market-rate apartments to rent, low-income apartments to rent and low-income condos to buy.

And if anyone wants to take part in some of the ONGOING URBAN LIFE in an American City, swing by Markets on Main in Cincinnati today. From 12th to 14th Street, Main Street will be lined with booths for artists and venders. This Sunday and every Sunday in the summer. :]

[Jeff_in_Datyon]

]oldest in Ohio... the midwest?

Check your history Jeff_in_Dayton.

Everything in Cincinnati south of at least 12th street was an urban area predating 1870. and 1840. Heck, DAYTON Street in Cincinnati is for the most part pre Civil War. And it lays pretty far outside of the origina of Cincinnati. (http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/pages/-6743-/)

My home in particular was built in 1859 (or 1853 depending on how you read the cornerstone) and it's "way up" north of 14th Street.




I understand that the area north of Central..ie Over The Rhine and adjacent areas.... was pretty old, but that actual housing stock is post Civil War..that the area was originally built up at a lower density (probably like the Oregon or German Village in Columbus), then became denser with time as older frame & perhaps brick buildings where torn down and rebuild with those taller tenement style buildings. So the character of the neighborhood is more post- rather than pre- Civil War in terms of building stock.

If Over The Rhine and adjacent areas are actually pre-civil war in terms of the bulk of the buildings, then that would be really special...

[justa bill]

Hmm, I didn't realize "pre-Civel War" was the barometer for "really special"...

Yeah, the area north of Central is pretty old. and the area south of Central is even older. Like the Taft Museum. 1820. that's pretty old. A President visited his grand daddy there (he was born up the street through)... does that make it special? :] (http://www.taftmuseum.org/information.htm) and there are actually quite a few buildings that survive from the early 1800's. and of course the streets are the same streets...

But no, Over-the-Rhine did not develope as an "over crowded version" of Oregon Street. The largest concentration of 19th century building in the country was laid out as a very urban area, and many of the first generation buildings remain as they were built. Again, which ever date you go by, my home is pre-Civil War. for whatever that's worth.

and I think Covington is in the midwest... 'Riverboat row' is older than most of what survives in Cinci anyway, I'm pretty sure.

[Handy Smurf]

it is practically impossible to have any redevelopment or new construction in an older neighborhood without having gentrification. gentrification implies displacement, and whenever something is built that will raise the property values in a neighborhood people will be displace. however, many Community Development Corporation (CDCs) work with the local resident to redevelop buildings in a neighborhood that will be affordable to the current residents to minimize the effects of gentrification. An example of this would be ReSTOC in Over the Rhine, but there are other example in almost every city in the country.
I used to work with ReSTOC thru my HS. If you are against "gentrification" its a good way to put your money where your mouth is and fight the good fight

[pacoforgin]

I used to work with ReSTOC thru my HS. If you are against "gentrification" its a good way to put your money where your mouth is and fight the good fight

i also did some work for restoc when i was in high school. i am living in oregon now, so working for restoc now could prove to be difficult.

[ahart2001]

If you're familiar with Cincinnati, Mount Adams for the most part is an example of gentrification. It had always been home to mostly Irish and Catholic working class families. Now only the very welthy can afford to live there.

Downtown Cincinnati/OTR is an example of revitalization. These neighborhoods were home to people of every class for over a century. And that's what they are becoming again. There is marker-rate homes for sell, market-rate apartments to rent, low-income apartments to rent and low-income condos to buy.



I agree with your stance on the term gentrification and how it is misused. However your view of Mt Adams and OTR are slightly off-base. Originally, Mt Adams was a vinyard. In fact, Most of the East Side was a vineyard (as apparent in the wine storage cellars in Ault Park). Eden Park was a private garden which was later donated to to the city for public use. The art museum was a privately owned building. These areas later were inhabited by the working class as they became developed (thanks to the inclines). Mt Adams was on the higher end while OTR held the lower end of the working class. Mt Adams eventually became a pretty run down area later into the 1900's until it was revitalized (or gentrified as some would say). This revitalization took off like a rocket and propelled Mt Adams into what it is today . . . the entertainment district that existed before entertainment districts became popular. And now housed run from $500,000 into the millions. OTR was never home to wealthy people (apart from the Washington park area). It is a very common misconception that OTR was this culturally rich area. It was lower working class. As the inclines were built, people started to move out of the valley onto the hills. Hence the name "Price Hill". With the advent of the automobile, the more affluent moved farther out. And since Cincinnati did not develop a good transit system, people kept spreading farther and farther and has now become a commuter town. Suburban sprawl hit Cincinnati hard. The revitalization of OTR is actually a good thing for the city. 60% of OTR and lower Price Hill is vacant and condemned housing.

No matter what you do, the poor are going to be displaced somewhere. WHen there was an excess of homeless/low income people in the 40's/50's/60's, Cincinnati built the projects. These were later condemned and torn down and the people were forced out and had to find somewhere to go. CIncinnati has since made a piss poor attempt at "low income housing" (i.e Section 8) which ironically have pretty much all been built on the West Side in traditionally "blue collar" areas of town which in turn force property values down causing those people to move farther out (I would consider this displacemnt). One of the Section 8 developments on Guerly Road off of Queen City Ave. / Rapid Run was built behind the Dunham Recreation Center (previously a Tuberculosis Hospital). It was situated between the Hospital's old Medical Waste dump and Potter's Field (an abandoned cemetary for unknown dead and Tuberculosis patients).

Gentrification could be the term applied to the whole Rookwood area development. They are tearing down houses of middle-class people which are in no way considered in dis-repair in order to build shopping centers that are desired by the people living in the $750,000 two-bedroom, 1 1/2 bath homes in Hyde Park and Mount Lookout.

This is coming from a student pursuing a Certificate in Historical Preservation (i.e. preserving and restoring historical buildings). Just adding my two cents. Revitalizing OTR is quite possibly the best idea Cincinnati has had in the past 30 years.

[BigSugar]

Revitalizing OTR is quite possibly the best idea Cincinnati has had in the past 30 years.

amen. shit's broke and needs some fixin'! maybe LaShawn Pettus B. will help once he gets out of jail.

[ahart2001]

amen. shit's broke and needs some fixin'! maybe LaShawn Pettus B. will help once he gets out of jail.


F that guy. He is the reason why its so hard to get any kind of City backing around here to do anything (well him and the fact that City Council is the biggest bunch of asshats that I have ever seen in my entire life).

[Jeff_in_Datyon]

Documentary proof that OTR that we know is actually a denser, tenement version of the orignal neighborhood:

"A.B Lakier, a Russian visitor of 1857, discovered in Over-The-Rhine's streets "small, two-story house intermingled with gardens, This in its own way is just like one of the small German towns"....The burgers tended the potted plants on the window sills, culitvated tiny garde plots in the evenings after work..." (in 'Cincinnati Observed', by John Clubbe)

Obviously OTR does not look like this today.

A neighborhood of "small two story houses intermingled with gardens" sounds much more like the Oregon District and German Villiage, thus my contention that these neighborhoods are probably more what Over-The-Rhine originally looked like before the density increased and the place became the tenement district we know today.

And if the neighborhood is mostly condemned and vacant maybe the solution isn't gentrification but demolition and reconstruction (saving a few representative streets, perhaps).

[yoshomon]

"Revitalizing" OTR so far has meant encouraging stupid bars and expensive art galleries that nobody who lives there can afford to move in.. and building expensive apartments and condos. If that project is carried out, poor people will not be able to live there, and they'll be forced into another neighborhood. I guess that's a victory for the (white) yuppies who move into the neighborhood and kick all the poor (black) people out.

[Jeff_in_Datyon]

"Revitalizing" OTR so far has meant encouraging stupid bars and expensive art galleries that nobody who lives there can afford to move in.. and building expensive apartments and condos. If that project is carried out, poor people will not be able to live there, and they'll be forced into another neighborhood. I guess that's a victory for the (white) yuppies who move into the neighborhood and kick all the poor (black) people out.

I very much agree with this.

O-T-R is the poor folks neighborhood, and it is a good neighborhood for them as it is centrally located, has public transit (as poorer people might not be able to afford to run a car) and is close to social services.

I would be supportive of conservation of the area from a historic preservation perspective, but not if this means pushing the poor and working-class people out.

It is pretty interesting to think the place is a slum and ghetto if poor people live there, but becomes "nice" if the yuppies move in. The money is being spent on and by and for the yuppies and hipsters, so where are the landllords when they are needed to fix up poor peoples housing?

And, yes, there is definetly a racial aspect to this, as there was to Queensgate a generation or two earlier....demolish the black neighborhood for an industrial park, and shift the ghetto around town...that seems to be whats going on in Cincy...now the push is to shift the ghetto out of Over- The-Rhine via gentrification...

[ahart2001]

It is pretty interesting to think the place is a slum and ghetto if poor people live there, but becomes "nice" if the yuppies move in. The money is being spent on and by and for the yuppies and hipsters, so where are the landllords when they are needed to fix up poor peoples housing?


I am not saying its a slum because poor people live there. I think its a slum because of the state of the housing, the state of the neighborhood economy, the high crime ratio, the high unemployment, the prostitutes that proposition me as I am driving home up the hill to Clifton. I go thru the area every morning, day, and night. I walk thru parts and am offerred drugs 60% of the time I walk thru. The other 40% I am asked if I have any.

The landlord aren't arround to fix things up because they don't live in Cincinnati. They are true "slum lords" in the essence of the term. Much of the housing there is Section 8. The landlords only care about getting money and as long as its coming in, they don't give a rat's behind where its coming from. The city cannot do anything about the neighborhood. The police do drug busts in OTR every month but the problem is still rampant. I realize that low income and poverty areas lead to high crime and whatnot, but for all the help that is going into these places, the neighborhood is getting worse and worse.

I do not advocate in any way tearing down neighborhoods in order to build new residences. I want rennovations to take place. However you cannot rennovate with the landlords still owning the property. If you use immenent domain to reclaim the area from the bastard landlords, that forces the tennants out. The city does not have the funding to house all the people (thats why the projects were torn down in the first place). The money is not there for rennovations through public funding, it comes from private funding. If people are going to invest money into a property, they want a return for their investment. Thus the reason those areas appear "gentrified".

Cincinnati does have a nice little initiative called the Homesteading Act where you can get property for dirt cheap, but you must live there for 3 years and fix it up. The problem is that its a house here, and a house 5 blocks away, and another house 6 blocks away. People don't want to move right into the middle of a high crime area. if they would dole out property next to each other for a block or two, this initiative might work.

As far as the flower gardens and two story houses and such, those same buildings are still there. One thing you have to consider is the American mentality change that has occurred from 1857 until 2005. People took pride in where they lived. You didn't spray paint grafitti al over the neighborhood. There were no welfare checks. People worked to survive (not saying that welfare causes people to not work, just that it did not exist). If you rented a place back then, you took care of it. Today's world is not like that. Cincinnati was also one of the largest and technologically advanced cities in the U.S., if not the world, at that time. People did not sit inside and watch TV, life was outdoor centered. Communities were self supporting. (I won't go into my downfall of neighborhood community tirade here).

So, um, yeah. I got longwinded and I'll stop there. I hope you see my point and I know someone will pick someting out to comment about, haha, so i will leave it at that. I mean it IS CE/P.

[yoshomon]

One model that hasn't really taken root in Cincinnati is tenant unions and rent-strikes. That would certainly shake shit up.

[justa bill]

yeah, right now I do not care to correct a lot of the individual comments that have been made in the last few posts.

But the idea that the area called "Over-the-Rhine" was built as a "ghetto" with over-crowded "tenements" is rediculous and proffered by individules who are ignorant of the facts.

This subject is one which I know a great deal about:

1) I have lived in Over-the-Rhine for the past five years;

2) Before that, I completed my Thesis in Architecture at the University of Cincinnati's Collage of Design Architecture Art and Planning by designing new facilities for WAIF 88.3FM which were located in Over-the-Rhine. As a part of my studies I completed a great deal of research on the prehistory, history, development and social issues of Over-the-Rhine;

3) I have been on the Board of IMPACT Over-the-Rhine for four years now. We're a 501c3 non-profit that has been mentoring, employeeing and training neighborhood youth with activities such as organic farming and the making of public art for 13 years;

4) As well, I am on the Board of Directors of the Over-the-Rhine Foundation which has been working to make the are a place for "people of all backgrounds can live, work and play" for 15 years, and has organized the upcoming Tour of Homes;

5) I have travelled the world extensively studying urban design, and I am currently a practicing Architect who does most of my work in the area. Including two apartment building projects on Vine Street, and a full modernization of a "new" home from 1880 in the Mohawk District.

And most relevant:

6) I spent two years involved with the City of Cincinnati's Over-the-Rhine Comprehensive Plan. This project included all catagories of residents and business people from the area, and resulted in a plan that protects low-income residents while providing a goal and a plan to revitalize the more then 500 vacant buildings.

My involvement included Stake-Holder meetings, Stearing Committee meetings, Subcommittee meetings, Public Design exercises, and I was a member of the three person team that completed the City of Cincinnati's final design proposals that completed the project.

www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/downloads/cdap_pdf3645.pdf

Over-the-Rhine has greatly improved in the last ten years, and it continues to more fully realize its potential. With the opening of the Art Academy of Cincinnati's new home on Jackson Street in 3 months, the area will see one more significant milestone in it's long history.

--

[ahart2001]

One model that hasn't really taken root in Cincinnati is tenant unions and rent-strikes. That would certainly shake shit up.

You are right. Riots were the chosen method instead ;) haha.


But the idea that the area called "Over-the-Rhine" was built as a "ghetto" with over-crowded "tenements" is rediculous and proffered by individules who are ignorant of the facts.


I for one never said it was built as a "ghetto". But it has been degraded to that over time, which is only logical considering its vicinity to downtown and Cincinnati's stellar (note the sarcasm) planning efforts in the past few decades. And with that I am dropping the forum. I need to get some work done ;)

[justa bill]

inktank: http://www.irhine.com/index.jsp?page=home_050805

[Handy Smurf]

As far as the flower gardens and two story houses and such, those same buildings are still there. One thing you have to consider is the American mentality change that has occurred from 1857 until 2005. People took pride in where they lived. You didn't spray paint grafitti al over the neighborhood. There were no welfare checks. People worked to survive (not saying that welfare causes people to not work, just that it did not exist). If you rented a place back then, you took care of it. Today's world is not like that. Cincinnati was also one of the largest and technologically advanced cities in the U.S., if not the world, at that time. People did not sit inside and watch TV, life was outdoor centered. Communities were self supporting. (I won't go into my downfall of neighborhood community tirade here).
This is something that tends to happen with Section 8 housing. If people are given something, they generally dont feel the same sense of pride and responsibility that accompanies ownership.

[back2vinyl]

This is something that tends to happen with Section 8 housing. If people are given something, they generally dont feel the same sense of pride and responsibility that accompanies ownership.

Handy is correct. Section 8 residents have a much higher rate of anti-social behavior including drug use, violence, vandalization and other criminal activities. You can argue chicken and egg as to whether the anti-social behavior led to being poor, or whether growing up in poverty led to anti-social behavior, but the correlation is there. Concentrating section 8 in one area magnifies the effect. Landlords who focus on section 8 also tend to be less likely to maintain a property, leading to further deterioration of the neighborhood.

[justa bill]

This is something that tends to happen with Section 8 housing. If people are given something, they generally dont feel the same sense of pride and responsibility that accompanies ownership.

It's good to see an understanding of Section 8 Federal Subsidies. Unlike, say, the South Side of Chicago, the fact is there are no Federal or State or City housing projects in OTR. All of the low income housing here is Section 8 housing that was developed by private individules and corporations as a way to make money. That's right: people like Tom Denhart have made fortunes off of poverty.

Concentrating poor and disadvantaged people in a few areas is a terrible idea. A friend of mine calls it "warehousing the poor", and he's right.

Fortunately, HUD has finally recognized the problem. From the beginning of the program till 2000, if someone wanted help with their rent they had to live in a Section 8 building. Those buildings could be anywhere, but developers tended to put them all in the same neighborhoods. Now HUD has started "Section 8 Vouchers"... basically, the Federal government helps still helps people with their rent, but the tenent can use the voucher anywhere they want. This should help to lessen the "concentration" problem.

--

And Yosh, with Section 8, there are "rent strikes" all the time. It's set up for that... HUD ends up paying the rent, but the community at large ends up paying the larger price.

Expecting nothing out of healthy, capable individuals is one of the biggest wrongs in our country today. Lives are wasted.

[yoshomon]

You are right. Riots were the chosen method instead ;) haha.

If I had to go to a CPS highschool downtown, live in a shitty building, work a shitty job, and put up with bullshit from police all the time, I would riot too. Nothing has really changed since the first riot, and this city is still a powderkeg.

[justa bill]

If I had to go to a CPS highschool downtown, live in a shitty building, work a shitty job, and put up with bullshit from police all the time, I would riot too. Nothing has really changed since the first riot, and this city is still a powderkeg.

whaa? where's the highschool downtown? or do you mean Withrow out in the Hyde Park gee'hetto?

come on, yoshomon. if you don't like where you live: move. if you don't like your job: get a new one. if you don't like your job choices: get some more free education. "this city" has all the same choices and all the same problems of any other American city. ...and most of them boil down to human strengths and human weaknesses.

And when was the last time you were in Alphabet City in NYC, Yosh? Or have you ever ventured away from the historic, pretty parts of Charleston, SC? Or... have you ever driven through New Boston, Ohio? Compare the conditions.

http://img259.echo.cx/img259/8206/dsc045592rt.th.jpg (http://img259.echo.cx/my.php?image=dsc045592rt.jpg)

These three young guys were playing on the sidewalks when I went home for dinner and they were still there when I went back to the office. They were picking flowers from one of the many tree wells. (btw, a quarter block to the right in this photo [about 100 feet] is a City park with a big lawn and a play ground... ; )

I asked if the flowers were for their moms. They said they were for their girlfriend--and that they all have the same girlfriend. I told them that sounded like trouble... then they said they kind of like flowers themselves, too.

Powder keg, my ass. You seem like a real hate-monger, Yoshomon. Or, as one of these guys would might say, a hater.

Why hate?

But keep it up you crazy radical, and you'll keep making old white mother fuckers like Tom Denhart rich while you're at it.



--
edited to add: damn, these windows need to be cleaned! :cool:

[george]

Studies: Gentrification a boost for everyone (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-19-gentrification_x.htm)

By Rick Hampson, USA TODAY

Everyone knows gentrification uproots the urban poor with higher rents, higher taxes and $4 lattes. It's the lament of community organizers, the theme of the 2004 film Barbershop 2 and the guilty assumption of the yuppies moving in.

But everyone may be wrong, according to Lance Freeman, an assistant professor of urban planning at Columbia University.

In an article last month in Urban Affairs Review, Freeman reports the results of his national study of gentrification — the movement of upscale (mostly white) settlers into rundown (mostly minority) neighborhoods.

His conclusion: Gentrification drives comparatively few low-income residents from their homes. Although some are forced to move by rising costs, there isn't much more displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods than in non-gentrifying ones.

In a separate study of New York City published last year, Freeman and a colleague concluded that living in a gentrifying neighborhood there actually made it less likely a poor resident would move — a finding similar to that of a 2001 study of Boston by Duke University economist Jacob Vigdor.

Freeman and Vigdor say that although higher costs sometimes force poor residents to leave gentrifying neighborhoods, other changes — more jobs, safer streets, better trash pickup — encourage them to stay. But to others, gentrification remains a dirty word.

"All you have to do is talk to people around here," says James Lewis, a tenant organizer in Harlem, New York's most famous black neighborhood. "Everybody with money is moving into Harlem, and the people who are here are being displaced."

Even residents who have survived gentrification tend to believe it forces people out.

Maria Marquez, 37, has slept on the sofa for 12 years to give her mother and son the two bedrooms in their apartment in Chicago's gentrifying Logan Square area. But eventually, she says, "we're gonna get kicked out. It's a matter of time."

Kathe Newman, assistant professor of public policy at Rutgers University, argues that Freeman's research in New York understates the extent of displacement. But she says he has raised a good question: How, in the face of relentlessly higher living costs, do so many poor people stay put?

A hot-button issue

Gentrification has spawned emotional disputes in cities around the nation:

•In northwest Fort Lauderdale, where streets are named for the district's prominent old African-American families, three of four new home buyers are white, according to a survey by the Sun-Sentinel. City Commissioner Carlton Moore told the newspaper his largely black constituency fears displacement, even though he says it won't happen.

•In the predominantly Latino working class barrio of East Austin, the new Pedernales Lofts condominiums have raised adjacent land values more than 50% since 2003. Last fall, someone hung signs from power lines outside the lofts saying, "Stop gentrifying the East Side" and "Will U give jobs to longtime residents of this neighborhood?"

•In Charlotte, a City Council committee voted in December to remove language from a city planning department report that downplayed gentrification's threat to neighborhoods. Development could uproot some people, councilman John Tabor told the Charlotte Observer "If there are people in these neighborhoods who have to move because they can't afford their taxes, that's who I want to help," he said.

•In Boston's North End, the destruction of the noisy Central Artery elevated highway promises to attract younger, more affluent new residents and dilute the traditional Italian immigrant culture.

In the two decades after World War II, government urban renewal schemes tore down whole neighborhoods and scattered residents.

Gentrification, which appeared in the 1970s, was something else. Motivated by high gasoline prices, suburban sprawl and a new taste for old architecture, some middle class whites began moving into neighborhoods that had gone out of fashion a generation or two earlier.

Here's how it works: A dilapidated and depopulated but essentially attractive neighborhood — solid housing stock, well laid-out streets, proximity to the city center — is discovered by artists, graduate students and other bohemians.

Block by block, the neighborhood changes. The newcomers fix up old buildings. Galleries and cafes open, and mom 'n' pop groceries close. City services improve. Finally, the bohemians are joined by lawyers, stockbrokers and dentists. Property values rise, followed by property taxes and rents.

To some urban planners, gentrification is a solution to racial segregation, a shrinking tax base and other problems. To others, it is a problem: Poor blacks and Hispanics, who've held on through hard times and sometimes started the neighborhood's comeback, are ousted by their own success.

Jose Sanchez, an urban planning expert at Long Island University in Brooklyn, says some changing neighborhoods stabilize with a mixture of people. But he says the poor — and the bohemian pioneers — can also be "washed out" by scheming landlords or government policies such as rezoning and urban renewal.

The poor stay put

Freeman and Vigdor say gentrification has gotten a bad rap. When they studied New York City and Boston, respectively, they found that poor and less educated residents of gentrifying neighborhoods actually moved less often than people in other neighborhoods — 20% less in New York.

For his national study published this year, Freeman found only a slight connection between gentrification and displacement. A poor resident's chances of being forced to move out of a gentrifying neighborhood are only 0.5% greater than in a non-gentrifying one.

So how do some neighborhoods change so dramatically? Freeman says it's mostly the result of what he calls "succession": Poor people in gentrifying neighborhoods who move from their homes — for whatever reason — usually are replaced by people who have more income and education.

Freeman and Vigdor say skeptics who view gentrification merely as " 'hood snatching" should remember three things:

•Many older neighborhoods have high turnover, whether they gentrify or not. Vigdor says that over five years, about half of all urban residents move.

•Such neighborhoods often have so much vacant or abandoned housing that there's no need to drive anyone out to accommodate people who want to move in. A quarter of the housing in one section of Boston's South End was vacant in 1970; the population had dropped by more than 50% over 20 years. Today, the population has increased more than 50%, and the vacancy rate is less than 2%.

•Rising housing costs in gentrifying districts may ensure that poor residents who do move leave the neighborhood, rather than settle elsewhere in it. Since their places usually are taken by more affluent, better educated people, the neighborhood's character and demographics change.

Vigdor argues that hatred of gentrification is largely irrational: "We were angry when the middle class moved out of the city," he says. "Now we're angry when they move back."

He asks whether Detroit, which in 50 years has lost half its population and most of its middle class, would not have been better off with gentrification than it has been without it.

A housing shortage

Gentrification is a symptom of a bigger problem: Metro areas don't create enough housing, Vigdor says. When prices in the suburbs get high enough, home buyers start looking at "undervalued" urban housing. If it's close to downtown and has some period charm, so much the better.

But critics insist gentrification does real harm to real people. Lewis, the Harlem organizer, says he can't get statements from people who were forced out because he doesn't know where they went.

One reason poor families make such heroic efforts to stay is because the quality of life is improving — partly thanks to gentrification.

In the Logan Square area, Marquez says, an influx of higher-income newcomers has coincided with what seems like more aggressive policing.

"The gang bangers are not around as much, and you don't see the prostitutes on the corners like you used to," she says.

Idida Perez hates the rising prices but admits, "There are a lot more small cafes owned by people from the neighborhood, and I am a big coffee drinker." And new businesses mean new jobs: Someone has to pour those lattes.

[justa bill]

Y'all think you know.
but you don't.

..Or are the apartments already that way when they get there because of landlords that wont repair them?

and how many Section 8 buildings have you been in CG? Why do you think you know? Because you read it in a book somewhere?

I've been in a few Section 8 buildings, more than I care to count, and, while there are actually very specific guidelines and restrictions for the layout and maintainance of buildings which receive "Project-based Section 8" funding, the one thing that is not regulated is how residents keep their own units. And that leads to some horribly unkept apartments.

Actually, for companies that deal with the subsidized housing market (such as Model Managment and Hart Reality), one of their largest costs by far is maintenance (such as repairing and replacing broken windows and doors, holes that have been kicked into drywall, sinks ripped from walls, so forth, so on.)

They do maintain the properties, typically. Because to not do so and fail one of the many HUD inspections is the ONLY way they will get stiffed on rent. Since HUD pays the rent, they have to keep HUD happy. The client is always right...

Of course those HUD standards allow for very small bedrooms, and there is no issue with a building having nothing but the smallest sized apartments allowed. ...or having really ugly sinks and showers and kitchen cabinets ...or being painted some really ugly colors because those were the cheapest. The client doesn't care about ugly.

And you know, more times than I care to think about I have seen residents throw their unfinished lunch, dinner or other trash out a window and onto the sidewalk or street. I cannot remember an occasion where I saw the same thing coming from a "market-rate" building. Some "inner-city" problems are do to personal problems.

In America, we have some pretty high private property rights. And if someone wants to make a building they own into a "Project-based Section 8" building, there is little the Local authorities can do to prevent it--even if the block is alread full of them and it would be a bad idea to add to them.

But HUD has no regulations about that, so, again, most privately developed low-income housing ends up in the same two or three neighborhoods.

Many people are indeed born into less than favorable conditions in this world, but in America there are also a large number of people who, through everyday choices, reject avenues to help them improve their lives and thereby denigrate their own environment and their own body.

[malheureux]

allow me to interject, if you please.

this matter is of utmost importance to me. i am a single mom who works two jobs while i get a degree. i am low-income for sure, and i live in an area of town which is teetering on gentrification. it's gonna blow at any minute. northside, which applied for a city facade grant [3 years ago, by the way], has finally gotten their christmas gift from thier sugar daddy. it's already attracted just about every operating business from short vine: last week, i think, we got another tattoo place, we got pinnokios, survival shop, ali's boutique, they opened a coffee shop, a decent bar, a handful of eating options and an indie/B movie video rental store. we got the comet, the chop shop and red polly's furniture store [which, incedentally, is never open when i'm around...]. it's the only area of town that is really gay-friendly, since we have more gay bars per capita than anywhere else in ohio probably. this is only the beginning, i believe. there is a neighborhood silent protest because walgreens wants to out a location in the old lumber yard at the corner of blue rock and hamilton. the natives don't like it, since schaepers has been around for ages. i'm on the fence.

what happens if i need tampons after 7pm? what if i need bandaids for mini*malH when he falls?

i live in a building that was built in 1888 [old world charm], and operated as a school intil 1996, was abandoned, picked up by the Women's Research and Development Corporation and converted into lease/option condos. the condo conversion is happening as we speak. the building was presented an award by the Cincinnati Preservation Society for outstanding work when they fixed 'er up. i still have the remains of an old chalkboard in my 'classroom' [unit]. my building i guess would qualify as gentrification. it was presented to me as a dwelling for everyone: gay, straight, old, young, black, white, rich, poor and dog-friendly as hell. it was something for everyone. i'm sure that more will follow. my fear is that my rent will go up to an unaffordable amount, and i will have to move my family, which is just the two of us, by the way, to housing that isn't safe.

i can't afford to live in blue ash.

i will most certainly find out soon enough what happens next. as i said, conversion is happening as we speak. the poorer families around are generally nice, however their children are troubled and causing trouble. crime has always been a factor in northside since i first found out it even existed. i haven't experienced much first hand, but last summer, you were in trouble if you were a white guy between 20 - 30 walking around. they supposedly caught the culprits, and things have been quiet so far during these warm days. i fear that all of us will be forced out so attorneys and the like can move in and play house for a while, until they get bored or tired of their SUVs getting broken into, then they'll go back to where they came from.

a lot of yelling though...