[HN Gopher] Dynamic Models of Gentrification
___________________________________________________________________
Dynamic Models of Gentrification
Author : Anon84
Score : 30 points
Date : 2024-10-24 17:49 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arxiv.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (arxiv.org)
| ihaveajob wrote:
| I wish the term 'displacement' would be more commonly used,
| because it encapsulates the negative aspects of gentrification.
| On the other hand, gentrification has objectively positive
| aspects (improvements in safety, amenities, livability of a
| neighborhood). But it's too late now.
| appreciatorBus wrote:
| It's long become a meaningless term in housing discourse. More
| or less boils down to "the vibes are off" When millionaires who
| live in houses started describing non-millionaires being
| allowed to live in apartments nearby as "gentrification", you
| know it's time for a new word.
| zjp wrote:
| god so fucking true. you have to understand in SF housing
| discourse that 'bringing in undesirable elements' means
| 'letting people that "only" make 100k live here'
| daft_pink wrote:
| My personal experience in Chicago is that the government had
| public housing projects that generated high crime rates and drove
| people away that ran in a ring around the city center, but
| otherwise were in premium locations. Then large public housing
| projects went out of favor and they were largely torn down and
| removed from 2000-2015. As the crime rates in these neighborhoods
| declined, suddenly the reason why people wouldn't live in these
| places was removed and the intrinsic value of property so close
| to the city center skyrocketed.
|
| It's sort of like being the person who buys the really cheap used
| car that's always in disrepair. The reason you got that vehicle
| so cheap, is because it's dilapidated. If they had built the car
| to last, you wouldn't have been able to afford it anyways. If you
| live in the cheapest neighborhood then it's going to be a
| neighborhood that has problems. If they remove the problems then
| the value of the property is probably going to increase and
| suddenly you can't afford it anymore.
| zehaeva wrote:
| Your post has reminded me of Vimes's Theory of Socio-economic
| Unfairness[0], but I can't figure out if you think that the way
| the system works is a good thing or more just "this is the way
| the world works"
|
| [0] https://terrypratchett.com/explore-discworld/sam-vimes-
| boots...
| immibis wrote:
| Mind you, if _everyone_ lives in the cheap neighborhood then
| "problem people" are diluted to the point there isn't a
| neighborhood-wide problem meanwhile everyone gets to pay cheap
| rent.
| taeric wrote:
| I'm dubious of this idea. Examples of locations where this
| dynamic exists?
| opwieurposiu wrote:
| Singapore is the only place I heave heard of where rich and
| poor live in the same public housing buildings.
|
| Could have something to do with the extreme land scarcity.
| The super rich still live in private houses though.
| fire_lake wrote:
| This is why slums are in such inhospitable places.
|
| Ever wonder why people live in industrial waste sites, on steep
| hillsides, swamps, etc? It's because if the locations weren't
| so undesirable, they would have been cleared and replaced
| already.
| sega_sai wrote:
| That's interesting. I was hoping to see some comparison of their
| model with the data in the paper, but haven't found it (I looked
| at the figures). That's a bit disappointing...
| vavooom wrote:
| "Within our modeling framework, we show that gentrification
| emerges only when high-income residents have some mobility, even
| if minimal, highlighting how their movement patterns catalyse the
| process. We treat relocation flows of agents in our city as time-
| varying edges in a temporal network, leveraging established tools
| from network science and human mobility research."
|
| So to summarize, when rich individuals wants to move, they do.
| Seems logical given they have the excess opportunity to do so
| with minimal risk / cost often associated with taking on whatever
| risks are associated with 'gentrifying'
| vavooom wrote:
| Also: "as city population density increases, so does the
| propensity for gentrification" summarizes to people want to
| live near other people!
| timssopomo wrote:
| Having lived in Brooklyn and Jersey City for a combined 12 years,
| starting when an office worker could still buy a literal house in
| Prospect Heights, I'm fully convinced that "gentrification" is a
| meaningless phrase and we need a completely different way of
| studying this issue that looks at the role of finance and
| government in displacing the poor.
|
| Wealthy individuals moved into "gentrifying" neighborhoods
| _after_ massive movements of capital, not before. In 2007, no
| professional was leaving the upper east side to move to
| Williamsburg or Prospect / Crown Heights. After Bloomberg rezoned
| the waterfront and rammed Atlantic Yards through, boatloads of
| money moved in. Vacant lots and abandoned buildings were torn
| down, new ones were built, "luxury" housing stock was created and
| _then_ rich people moved in.
|
| It's not all that different than VC money in startups - investors
| are sheep. Once it becomes clear a big fish has made an
| investment in an area, money floods in and drives up prices. To
| justify the increase in land values, investors have to raise
| rents. To raise rents, they need to improve the housing stock.
| This creates the inventory that the wealthy purchase.
| Maxamillion96 wrote:
| > It's not all that different than VC money in startups -
| investors are sheep. Once it becomes clear a big fish has made
| an investment in an area, money floods in and drives up prices.
| To justify the increase in land values, investors have to raise
| rents. To raise rents, they need to improve the housing stock.
| This creates the inventory that the wealthy purchase.
|
| Priming the pump is the economic term for this, old Timey pumps
| needed to have a bit of water poured into a mechanism to
| lubricate and and make it possible to pump water out.
| Tade0 wrote:
| I can attest to that, as I've seen something of this sort
| happen in two cities already.
|
| City councils talk of "revitalising" an area, but it's really
| about getting the most out of prime locations where the rich
| would had moved in already if it weren't for the dilapidated
| state of the mentioned.
|
| Interestingly the shift seems to affect businesses the most.
| The moment the first luxury condo is built/renovated you start
| seeing a change in the types of services offered. The other day
| I bought a particularly expensive bagel in a cafe that looked
| really out of place in the barely standing building where it
| was located. I'm sure almost none of the people that are long-
| term residents of this area go there.
| thereticent wrote:
| My memory from the US Midwest is that Williamsburg already had
| a reputation as a hipster-level gentrifying area--to the point
| that the PBR-sipping indie set was already eschewing it for
| Bushwick. Then again, whomever I spoke to could have been
| parroting an odd blogosphere take by then.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| Tom Toles explained the process in 1998:
| https://laviedesidees.fr/local/cache-vignettes/L500xH449/1to....
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-24 23:00 UTC)