Readers: Gentrification In St. Louis Is A Good Thing
In the poll last week readers indicated gentrification was a good for St. Louis:
- a good thing, we need more middle & upper income residents to fill vacant structures 115 72.78%
- Other answer… 20 12.66%
- neither good or bad, not really a problem 14 8.86%
- a bad thing, making it harder for the working poor to stay in newly trendy areas 8 5.06%
- unsure/no opinion 1 0.63%
But there were many “other” answers submitted:
- Sometimes it is good, sometimes if it bad but always an issue in redevelpment.
- non existent
- Both good and bad, for the aforementioned reasons.
- a good thing that needs to be matched by investment in lower income housing
- Both aspects: good b/c we need redevelopment
- an insanely complex issue that calls for property tax/assessment reform.
- We would be lucky to have this problem.
- nonexistent!
- Some gentrification is needed to revive parts of the city
- Much more complex than a poll……………………………………………
- generally bad, but some mixed-income options are becoming available…
- every city needs a good mix of people of all income levels
- as long as the new residents are filling previously vacant structures it is ok.
- I would say its a problem that has both good and bad aspects
- I don’t like poor people, they don’t like me, and I don’t want &#
- seeing as how low income residents have treated the city i would say its great
- both, can be good for the economy but minorities
- Both good and bad.
- “. . . is”: uncontrollable in a free society.
- It’s fine, but needs to be better organized.
Indeed, gentrification in a complex topic but clearly the majority feels that it is needed on some level in St. Louis.
– Steve Patterson
There is a difference between displacing existing neighborhoods and re-using empty spaces. I think downtown St. Louis is a good example. While there have been many previously empty spaces turned into lofts/condos, there is still a large stock of affordable rental units. The homeless shelters are still here, and the downtown region is much more vibrant for everyone.
There is a difference between displacing existing neighborhoods and re-using empty spaces. I think downtown St. Louis is a good example. While there have been many previously empty spaces turned into lofts/condos, there is still a large stock of affordable rental units. The homeless shelters are still here, and the downtown region is much more vibrant for everyone.
There is a difference between displacing existing neighborhoods and re-using empty spaces. I think downtown St. Louis is a good example. While there have been many previously empty spaces turned into lofts/condos, there is still a large stock of affordable rental units. The homeless shelters are still here, and the downtown region is much more vibrant for everyone.
No block, no neighborhood, no city, no region stays frozen in time. They’re always changing, they’re either getting better or they’re getting worse. If you want to classify getting better as gentrification, so be it, but you also need to classify getting worse as ghettoization. They’re both hot-button terms, pandering to people’s emotions.
The real issue is one’s perspective. If you can afford to live in an improving neighborhood – pay the mortgage, pay the taxes, pay for the repairs – in the long run, gentrification is usually viewed as a great thing – a good place to live and a good investment. If you can’t afford to live in an improving neighborhood – can’t scrape together the down payment, can’t afford the rent, can’t afford the taxes – then abode envy can set in.
I’ve always been told that life isn’t fair. We’re all different, with different luck, intelligence, education, race, gender, stature, attractiveness, sexual orientation, religion, politics, resources and, especially, a series of life choices. They all affect our income, and that, in turn, affects our ability to “afford” any neighborhood. On one extreme, you find people who firmly believe in the “American Dream”, that if you work hard you’ll be rewarded with better things, that poor people are inherently lazy. On the other extreme, you find socialists, who believe that wealth needs to be redistributed, so that everyone gets the same outcome, all in the name of “fairness”.
I lean toward the non-socialist, gentrification-is-good side of the equation. When people aren’t rewarded for making things better, things go downhill. If your neighbors aren’t taking care of their property, why should you? If the government is going to tax you heavily, why work hard? If you get a roof over your head, food in your stomach and free cell phone for just showing up, why aspire to anything better?
No block, no neighborhood, no city, no region stays frozen in time. They’re always changing, they’re either getting better or they’re getting worse. If you want to classify getting better as gentrification, so be it, but you also need to classify getting worse as ghettoization. They’re both hot-button terms, pandering to people’s emotions.
The real issue is one’s perspective. If you can afford to live in an improving neighborhood – pay the mortgage, pay the taxes, pay for the repairs – in the long run, gentrification is usually viewed as a great thing – a good place to live and a good investment. If you can’t afford to live in an improving neighborhood – can’t scrape together the down payment, can’t afford the rent, can’t afford the taxes – then abode envy can set in.
I’ve always been told that life isn’t fair. We’re all different, with different luck, intelligence, education, race, gender, stature, attractiveness, sexual orientation, religion, politics, resources and, especially, a series of life choices. They all affect our income, and that, in turn, affects our ability to “afford” any neighborhood. On one extreme, you find people who firmly believe in the “American Dream”, that if you work hard you’ll be rewarded with better things, that poor people are inherently lazy. On the other extreme, you find socialists, who believe that wealth needs to be redistributed, so that everyone gets the same outcome, all in the name of “fairness”.
I lean toward the non-socialist, gentrification-is-good side of the equation. When people aren’t rewarded for making things better, things go downhill. If your neighbors aren’t taking care of their property, why should you? If the government is going to tax you heavily, why work hard? If you get a roof over your head, food in your stomach and free cell phone for just showing up, why aspire to anything better?
All things in moderation, including moderation.