When your lease (contract) is up, I should be able to make as much money as I want as the owner of the property. You're not entitled to low or affordable rent on my property. If I want to charge $7500 per month to a Chinese national after you move out, that's my business.
@@likeawhispr clearly which is why we need regulation to prevent people like you from being your worst self. That's generally why laws exist. Greed is a sin for a reason, it makes you hurt others for your own self interest, which you seem not to care.
@@choicesii1 No, it's called America, where people can do as they wish in most areas with their own property. You're not "entitled" to low-rent on my property. You are entitled to look elsewhere. Rent control means people just stop putting up "affordable housing' and put up luxury apartments from the jump. Sloth is also a so-called "sin". Want to be able to afford what others can - then put in the work.
@@likeawhispr what extra work can a janitor put in to afford to keep up with rising cost? A share cropper, ,a factory worker, or a construction worker? People I know that work hard are paid the least. So what you're saying is idiotic. Before you say the next idiotic thing, which is work smarter... I know people who work smarter and can't keep up as well. Regulation is very American as it used to exist until Republicans made repeal after repeal to put us where we are now. The next step when you let things fester is always violence in the form of criminal activity, which is what you see now. Its not a mystery formula of what happens when people like you go unregulated. We put laws in place to have a civilized society. America without regulation is any 3rd world country. America with low taxes is any third world country. Have you ever paid attention to what all first world countries have in common? High taxes, regulations and unions. What do all third world countries have in common? Low taxes, little regulations, and no unions.
@@choicesii1 You've forgotten one important thing. People have a God given right to be themselves, with their own property. What's greed to you and your religion isn't to others, and in this country other people's business isn't predicated on your religion. Do a TED talk on that reality.
You really didn't pay attention to the video. When the city places a greater effort in making a profit then to helping the already established community that's a crime. That's greed manipulating them .
If you support stopping gentrification then certainly you would support stopping reverse-gentrification. Reverse-gentrification is where people of a higher income are forced to move because of increases in crime and downward trending property values. The goal of stopping reverse-gentrification would be to use public monies to keep property values up in areas which are trending down. I don't see how it is fair to support one without supporting the other.
This makes no sense. Reverse anti gentrification? Srsly? If ur talking about urban decay that’s a while different phenomena and shouldn’t be compared to gentrification.
If it smells like BS, it probably is......Now 1-We tried this in my former country, Soviet Union, and as anybody alive today knows., it failed miserably 2- Because of that , what you call "Gentrification", has come back in the biggest cities in Russia with a Vengeance...!!!! 3- in the past 25 years Moscow had 10 times the level of gentrification that London had in the past 200 years 4- Econ 101, If the demand is high enough, somebody will find a way to fulfill that demand, and in the process there will be winners and losers 5- This lady should at least read Adams Smith for the queen's sake, after all he was one of her own people...!!!
I think what she's talking about is greater creativity in planning in the worldwide phenomenon of gentrification, to avoid associated issues. These issues are very real and upsetting for longtime residents. I'm curious about the accuracy of point 3. Do you have empirical evidence to prove this? Also, Adam smith talked about the Invisible Hand. Sorry, but markets (such as housing) do need regulation. I think you are alluding to the idea of having no regulation at all and that the market will self-regulate at any cost, even if there are de-merit goods involved and increased inequality. I think given the recent economic crash, it's evident that markets do need intervention and regulation. A total free market regarding housing isn't the way. London is incredibly expensive now and it's causing the average person to have less money to spend on goods and services as their rents are so high.
I am so confused about gentrification causing displacement because if you own your home, no one can force you to move. However, most of the people she (woman in the video) is referring to are renters, and I am not one to say it is fair lower income people might have to relocate, but life is not fair. My parents taught me as a child (seriously) "Son life is not fair". When people rent, they are entirely dependent on the mercy of the landlord/property owner, and in America, we're supposed to be a free country. Therefore, being we are a free country we have what's called property rights, and property rights were one of the first concerns our founding fathers had in America (the land of the free). " In Federalist 54, James Madison stated tersely: “Government is instituted no less for the protection of the property than of the persons of individuals.” As Madison later elaborated, property rights are as important as personal rights because the two are intimately connected. The right to labor and acquire property is itself an important personal right and entitled to government protection; and the property acquired through the exercise of this personal right is entitled, by derivation, to an equal protection. As he put it in his “Address to the Virginia Convention”: I am utterly confused by the woman in the video's rhetoric and her apparent racism against European Americans/Caucasians. Currently, I live in an area in the midst of gentrification, and it is great. We have people of all nationalities moving here, Caucasian, Indian, Asian, and more upper/higher income people of color. So her trying to portray gentrification as something the big bad white privileged class is doing. Perhaps she should one read the Constitution, and pay attention to the people moving to these areas. She has an agenda, and she simply wants to make Caucasians out to be the bad guys for taking advantage of an opportunity when it is available. People are business people, and we are going to make deals. It is what business people do, but I feel the woman in this video would like to see revitalization but at tax payers expense. Being someone who leans more toward libertarian I see her idea as merely 'TAKING' from one group of people to give to another.
+Duke This video is not really that good. The speaker doesn't explain WHAT gentrification actually is and why it's bad. She basically says that's happening and that it's not good without enough detail.
It could also be argued that the services in the gentrified area become significantly more expensive, so property owners are forced to relocate; due to their wages being inadequate to maintain the increased cost of living.
In our city, this "revitalization" (buying up homes and tearing them down to build luxury condos) has allowed the city to reassess properties in those areas. Taxes are quadrupled at least and people who were paying a few hundred in taxes are now being billed several thousand, forcing them to sell their homes or lose them for back taxes. Often these people are older and have lived in their home for several decades. They seem to have no protection at all.
some important findings whilst researching gentrification that are hardly ever mentioned= gentrification is the privatisation of public spaces, commodification of social relations, self affiliation with identity over class politics, control/surveillance of dangerous populations... people see themselves as middle class because they have a degree and desk job, however youre the post industrial working class adapted to a post industrial economy, better equipped to regurgitate dominant, hegemonic, neo-liberal ideology, it is understood that gentrifiers see the process of moving into and taking over an area as a battle to win... kinda sadistic. KIRSTEEN PATON - MAKING WORKING CLASS NEIGHBORHOODS POSH. Short, academic, insightful research
At last a decent addition to the TED talk....Simple opinions are meaningless in such a debate. Mark Paren, the free market economy that you speak of is clearly not the answer, trickle down is a myth to keep the status quo (not the 60's rock combo you understand). The adage of the market is to just pay enough to stop a riot, so this is about fair economics where all benefit from regeneration rather than a few from gentrification. More research is needed into the various consequences of various actions. The broader picture is about the rules that govern local authority land, lease holders of private land, free holders of private land all under some regulation that benefits all... to a degree. Flexibility built in as economies change. The cheap money available at present (from QE) for buy-to-let being a huge issue. Investment should not be in bricks and mortar, but new industry. All the time quick profit can be made out of low regulation property rents will remain high... Low interest rates means that savers look to property, i dont blame them, but this is the consequence of cheap money printed by private banks to lend to each other... to then build , and then expect a high return is present root of capital. So as usual its not a simple lump it or leave it...opinion. Finally when this effects the middle class then we will see change...this is now happening. Thus Trump the vote of a frustrated blue and white collar worker, the present situation is causing people to look elsewhere for answers which ultimately will benefit nobody....the 1% know this and why they occasionally throw a few crumbs...
But what was to happen to places like Heygate estate? Shouldn't we accept that it was a badly designed, poorly maintained place that needed to go. It could be replaced with something better. Or are poor people relegated to live in places like this. Displacement will occur but we must make more of an effort to give the former residents of these places more choice. And better designed buildings that last. The power is too much on the side of the greedy developers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't gentrification just market dynamics? Someone buys a building... upgrades it and now rents it out for a profit? Those who cannot afford it then move on. To me it's just the same as your favourite restaurant upgrading and charging more for similar meals. Are people allowed to force the restauranteur to lower his prices? Don't they just move on and spend their money somewhere else? In the CBD of Cape Town, South Africa, the majority of millennials starting families (of all races) have moved into the suburbs. Affordability is the main reason. The rent prices have soared. No one protested. All we did is move out to more affordable areas. Those areas then benefitted from the migration. Why should a certain group of people have a monopoly on an area? Isn't this another form of price fixing? Generally gentrification has improved the security of the area and made it more accessible with public transport initiatives. That's just one example. Am I missing something?
Generally (because it happens in different places for different reasons) it is a case that new jobs for young professionals become available in a specific place or there is an expansion of transport links to such an area. Often developers see it as an opportunity to knock down what is already there and build new "luxury" housing for the people who will move in. The problem is two-fold: #1: the new people in the area need a place to live, #2: the people in the area already shouldn't face disruption because of this. Developers only care about #1 as that's better for their return on investment. Supply and demand would say that if you build more housing then everyone can live there but in practice that usually means nothing as the land value will increase exponentially and land value generally corresponds to rental value (assuming that poorer people rent) so affordability doesn't change plus often the current population will be displaced because of the construction anyway. The only way to really stop gentrification is to get rid of profitability from housing, which would actually be a sensible idea for the economy as it would stop specualtive bubbles occuring and sinking the economy every 10-12 years. The only people who benefit from the system as it is are landlords, bankers and other parasites who don't actually contibute but take vast sums of money anyway.
@@Wamsicks I'm sorry but if you take profit out of someone else's work, you create nothing. You change nothing. No one's going to make anything better if all they can do is spend their own hard earned money and get nothing in return. Just like those people in the rough areas want to make more, the people fixing up a house want a return. The world isn't a charity. No one's going to fix up something just for a good deed. If you work, you expect a return.
great talk but not entirely accurate. I worked in local government for many years dealing with repairs and issues to council housing. A large proportion of the stock was not build to last for instance, pipework built into cement walls - so when theres a leak walls in various properties need to have their opened up. Its crazy...so there are many examples when it makes sense to demolish and rebuild - better housing, better facilities etc etc. However, there clearly needs to be balance......
@@chirsmatthew5633 Name a culture that's lasted forever. Times change dude - the sooner you realize and accept that, the more at peace you will be with the universe.
@@robertsteinberger5667 you don't know me. I've lived iin several neighborhoods that have become gentrified. I lived in the Maxwell street area of Chicago in the 1990s as a local college was using tiffs and immenent domain to completely take over one of the most historically significant neighborhood in Chicago. I was in a group that tried to get several building listed as historic so that the college couldn't purchase them just to build them down. In the end, the neighborhood wad gentrified. Its inevitable. Change is the only constant in this world. Fight it if you want, but if you want to live a happy life, then just accept it.
It all starts with the right mindset. Do you revitalize a neighborhood with or without participation of the local community? Does the government care about doing something against gentrification? The thing is in usa capitalism and the free market are so holy that indeed it might be a lost cause....
White people moving out of a shitty neighborhood is white flight and is bad. White people not wanting to invest in said shitty neighborhood filled with gang members is disinvestment and is also bad. White people moving back into the neighborhood and investing into it by creating many businesses in it that attract white people back in is also bad. Supply and demand. Increase the quality of a city and you increase the demand to live in it. Prices rise unless you build larger buildings. If you don't like to have old houses torn down and you don't want people to want to move there then you cannot demand people to invest in it. Because the purpose of investment is to increase value which increases prices if done correctly. (the alternative is to spend money and not manage to improve the area) This is why I personally don't see the point of even addressing poor black neighborhoods in the US. They do not want the solution from white people and they cannot be bothered to fix it themselves. If you disagree then fix Detroit. But as I said. Improve an area => people want to move there more than they did before.
Simon Ulander I agree but still focusing on race to much. The thing is people with money take care of the town's they live in because if they didn't they would loose money. It didn't matter what skin color you are just don't play a victim and expect people to cater to you.
+Salvator There's a difference between a "race issue" and just plain old reality. Seems no one wants to deal in reality because then the welfare stops.
nene. You are pretty naive if you think that you can get rid of class simply by removing capitalism. Social hierarchies are essential to human societies and there is proof of a biological basis of that behavior. And since intelligence is normally distributed you are always going to have in a free society people who end up better than other people. The only way you could theoretically remove class is to remove freedom as well. And even then you would probably have a rich political class.
+RAYE SOCIAL and this happens to more than urban areas it also happens in rural areas when developers turn farm towns into suburban areas and ruin the whole layout and way of life that was. not everything is about you life is not fair grow a pair it's rough out there.
Salvator seeno My generation was the first generation to be college educated in my family. We've been in America for over 100 years. This is how deep racism is. Furthermore... If the 6 year old's parent was refused education because of their race and two generations before them weren't even allowed to be in de-segregated schools and one generation before that wasn't allowed to vote, what makes you think they would be able to seek education proficiently? I'm fine, I'm educated and my child will be too. Your privilege is blinding you to facts. This conversation is about urban areas so I don't even know where your farm ramble comes in.
Maybe the lower classes should try getting a job so they can join the middleclass instead of whining about "gentrification". the opposite is Ghettoisation
What typically happens to displaced low-income citizens? You can't make a strong claim that gentrification is good or bad without knowing this. Are communities being gentrified whilst others become cheap and neglected at the same time or something? Any replies are welcome.
The answer is simple. Let poor neighborhoods fester until everyone either leaves or dies. Then people who have something to offer can come in and make it a nice place to live without fear of people getting mad at them for making it notshitty anymore.
Poor neighborhoods have gotten better without gentrification. Better living conditions and neighborhoods improvements does not equate to gentrification.
The problem isn't gentrification. That's literally having money return to an area that has been poorly managed by the people that caused the slumification. 🤡
6 років тому+2
Shouldn’t everything be given back to the hunter gatherers ?
Can't stop progress and as other areas become prohibitively expensive people go to areas were the realestate is cheaper and rebuild or renovate existing buildings or houses. If you are renting then eventually your priced out of the area as the landlords realize there are other people willing to pay much more. This is going on all over, and not just in American cities. Supply and demand create high prices for existing realestate, not a bad thing, just reality.
@@maaxrenn He's already put you on notice that as far as he's concerned, he is simply better than you are. He doesn't "have a neighborhood." The whole world is "his neighborhood," and it's his right to play with anyone's life if it benefits him. I'm just stating flatly what he would like to say to you.
Because people are by and large are having fewer children, and also as the need for commercial retail and office space dwindled in the Internet age, I can foresee a time when housing could become dirt cheap again, but I don’t expect to live long enough to see it. Possibly many of the other posters here won’t either. Much of the problem though can be laid at the feet of zoning laws which put a stranglehold even on developers. Bringing back rooming houses could help solve at least part of it.
Why would you want to stop gentrification? You can't complain that you live in a bad neighborhood with no job opportunities when a massive business opens up across the street with a "Now Hiring" sign out front. Sure, your rent will go up, and you might have to move. But that neighborhood now has the job opportunities you once complained about it not having. The worst case scenario here is that you have to move across town to a cheaper apartment. But go get a job at that new business that opened up in your former neighborhood! The cycle doesn't have to end badly.
You have a lot of nerves, telling people who lived in their homes for years to move!! Wait until the tables turn, and i hope no one else sell. Their homes. Why don't you go back to the suburbs, how about that!! This. Plan will back fire on all of you. STAY WHERE U Are People, don't sell
@@teresapalmer7900 You have nerve acting like you have a right to live in a place that you don't freak'n own! Puhleeze! GTFOH... You living in a place for a number of years doesn't have anything to do with anything if you don't own it. You don't have rights to that place, that neighborhood, and low-rent just because you've lived there for a long time. One thing gentrification does, is remove stupidity from the premises.
Um, this lady spent 20 hard minutes demonizing gentrification and I TRIED to get on her level, but well, it's sounds very much like a positive thing to me. Yea, your rent will go up, for the renters. That's the only "negative" thing you have??? Most ppl pay more to LIVE in a better place. I live in Chicago...we need some SERIOUS gentrification.
No Jahsmine...it's not like the example you gave. The bank can't upgrade your car, because it is YOUR car. Your are RENTING an apartment, it's not yours...not one bit. Your not leasing to BUY, none of that. Someone OWNS the building that your in, and the OWNERS may elect to upgrade THEIR building, and if the OWNERS do upgrade their building, they can fetch more rent, so when your lease is up, THEN the OWNERS can ask for more, and then it's your decision to stay or find another place. My rent has gone up as well, and I don't see ANY improvements, but if stay, its on me to stay.
...please see my reply, but one last thing: please keep your anti-white, racist hangups out of the commentary, just put some effort in there to do that ok? thanks
The bottom line is that owners or vendors can charge what they want regardless. This countries currency could face inflation....to make a "better country"....would you stay or just move....its that easy huh.... isn't it? Your priveleged mind is too fogged and I'm sorry I can't help you comprehend what I'm saying....
Also I didn't make any anti-white hangups....I'm only stating the factual historical habits of whites. Sorry you don't comprehend that either. Good luck....
How to prosecute the real estate moguls, who are offenders My story, TWITTER:@SHAZ_MCGARRELL & CROWDRISE: b.e. Shazia McGarrell. Forced into "artificial poverty"
What is forgotten here is that all of these neighborhoods undergoing so-called "gentrification" had originally undergone ghettofication. The original people in these neighborhoods were also displaced. These were the people, usually, the white working class, forced to flee to the suburbs. Given a choice between ghettofication and gentrification, I would choose the latter.
@@brianbeecher3084 "White flight" implies people fleeing dangerous, unsafe conditions. People were displaced by threatening circumstances. They didn't displace themselves.
@@tylehaanderson2342 ... then you rent where you can afford it. It's just that simple. Oh, and instead of worrying about making the school basketball team, you worry about your GPA and getting a technical internship and a viable college major like other people do, so you're not continuing the cycle of poverty for the 4th generation. But that's real-world advice right?
These people howl when areas that have been turned into slums move up in the world but forget that places such as Brixton or Bethnel Green were once mixed or even middle class suburbs. The older pattern of habitation is merely reasserting itself. Good news.
Why should we care about Brixton? Each generation comes along and usurps the previous. Where did all the indigenous Londoners go when Brixton was colonised?
So many americans here accepting blindly gentrification is a way of nature or trying to talk something good which is often clearly wrong. Why? Why is there so little empathy for people who get kicked out of the neighborhood they have been living in for all of their life? Is it too much to ask to revitalize a neighborhood with participation of its community and have measures against gentrification?
Yes, it's too much to ask. You don't limit other people moving in and you don't limit them spending their own money and building a more widely desirable space. Most people don't drive through the hood saying "Oh honey, I'd sure like to live here and raise our kids in the crime ridden area where the schools have a 40% graduation rate and people have bars on their windows". There's a reason the better businesses, schools, and healthy eateries aren't located in those neighborhoods. Most people know that.
I love gentrification. My real estate team is always looking to buy up property here in Chicago. Our main goal is not money, but bringing a higher standard of living. We have rebuilt numerous decrepit communities into safe, clean well kept environments Resulting in reduced criminal activity and an overall higher standard of living!
We shouldn't stop development, but we should stop abusive eviction rent.
When your lease (contract) is up, I should be able to make as much money as I want as the owner of the property. You're not entitled to low or affordable rent on my property. If I want to charge $7500 per month to a Chinese national after you move out, that's my business.
@@likeawhispr clearly which is why we need regulation to prevent people like you from being your worst self. That's generally why laws exist. Greed is a sin for a reason, it makes you hurt others for your own self interest, which you seem not to care.
@@choicesii1 No, it's called America, where people can do as they wish in most areas with their own property. You're not "entitled" to low-rent on my property. You are entitled to look elsewhere. Rent control means people just stop putting up "affordable housing' and put up luxury apartments from the jump.
Sloth is also a so-called "sin". Want to be able to afford what others can - then put in the work.
@@likeawhispr what extra work can a janitor put in to afford to keep up with rising cost? A share cropper, ,a factory worker, or a construction worker? People I know that work hard are paid the least. So what you're saying is idiotic. Before you say the next idiotic thing, which is work smarter... I know people who work smarter and can't keep up as well. Regulation is very American as it used to exist until Republicans made repeal after repeal to put us where we are now. The next step when you let things fester is always violence in the form of criminal activity, which is what you see now. Its not a mystery formula of what happens when people like you go unregulated. We put laws in place to have a civilized society. America without regulation is any 3rd world country. America with low taxes is any third world country. Have you ever paid attention to what all first world countries have in common? High taxes, regulations and unions. What do all third world countries have in common? Low taxes, little regulations, and no unions.
@@choicesii1 You've forgotten one important thing. People have a God given right to be themselves, with their own property. What's greed to you and your religion isn't to others, and in this country other people's business isn't predicated on your religion. Do a TED talk on that reality.
gentrification should not be stopped.
Loved this, well presented.
So if you try to improve a neighborhood its a crime but if you leave it as is it is also a crime.
You really didn't pay attention to the video. When the city places a greater effort in making a profit then to helping the already established community that's a crime. That's greed manipulating them .
Everything's a 'crime' to a leftie,
Making poor people homeless so rich people move in is your idea of improving a neighbourhood.
Well delivered !!!
I still got an "us vs them" message out of this. Gentrification seems like a symptom of a more basic problem.
and thats inequality
If you support stopping gentrification then certainly you would support stopping reverse-gentrification. Reverse-gentrification is where people of a higher income are forced to move because of increases in crime and downward trending property values. The goal of stopping reverse-gentrification would be to use public monies to keep property values up in areas which are trending down.
I don't see how it is fair to support one without supporting the other.
Darth Nihiluz u sound so uneducated...but i wont go there
He's right, Jason.
This makes no sense. Reverse anti gentrification? Srsly? If ur talking about urban decay that’s a while different phenomena and shouldn’t be compared to gentrification.
@@martinherrera4617 People that are privileged living off of mommy and daddy's money that had everything in life handed to them will never understand
You just made an association with lower income individuals and crime rate..
If it smells like BS, it probably is......Now
1-We tried this in my former country, Soviet Union, and as anybody alive today knows., it failed miserably
2- Because of that , what you call "Gentrification", has come back in the biggest cities in Russia with a Vengeance...!!!!
3- in the past 25 years Moscow had 10 times the level of gentrification that London had in the past 200 years
4- Econ 101, If the demand is high enough, somebody will find a way to fulfill that demand, and in the process there will be winners and losers
5- This lady should at least read Adams Smith for the queen's sake, after all he was one of her own people...!!!
I think what she's talking about is greater creativity in planning in the worldwide phenomenon of gentrification, to avoid associated issues. These issues are very real and upsetting for longtime residents.
I'm curious about the accuracy of point 3. Do you have empirical evidence to prove this?
Also, Adam smith talked about the Invisible Hand. Sorry, but markets (such as housing) do need regulation. I think you are alluding to the idea of having no regulation at all and that the market will self-regulate at any cost, even if there are de-merit goods involved and increased inequality. I think given the recent economic crash, it's evident that markets do need intervention and regulation. A total free market regarding housing isn't the way. London is incredibly expensive now and it's causing the average person to have less money to spend on goods and services as their rents are so high.
Why do people think they have a right to live where their parents rented a place?
Why do you not think they deserved affordable living
I am so confused about gentrification causing displacement because if you own your home, no one can force you to move. However, most of the people she (woman in the video) is referring to are renters, and I am not one to say it is fair lower income people might have to relocate, but life is not fair.
My parents taught me as a child (seriously) "Son life is not fair". When people rent, they are entirely dependent on the mercy of the landlord/property owner, and in America, we're supposed to be a free country. Therefore, being we are a free country we have what's called property rights, and property rights were one of the first concerns our founding fathers had in America (the land of the free).
" In Federalist 54, James Madison stated tersely: “Government is instituted no less for the protection of the property than of the persons of individuals.”
As Madison later elaborated, property rights are as important as personal rights because the two are intimately connected. The right to labor and acquire property is itself an important personal right and entitled to government protection; and the property acquired through the exercise of this personal right is entitled, by derivation, to an equal protection. As he put it in his “Address to the Virginia Convention”:
I am utterly confused by the woman in the video's rhetoric and her apparent racism against European Americans/Caucasians.
Currently, I live in an area in the midst of gentrification, and it is great. We have people of all nationalities moving here, Caucasian, Indian, Asian, and more upper/higher income people of color. So her trying to portray gentrification as something the big bad white privileged class is doing. Perhaps she should one read the Constitution, and pay attention to the people moving to these areas.
She has an agenda, and she simply wants to make Caucasians out to be the bad guys for taking advantage of an opportunity when it is available. People are business people, and we are going to make deals. It is what business people do, but I feel the woman in this video would like to see revitalization but at tax payers expense.
Being someone who leans more toward libertarian I see her idea as merely 'TAKING' from one group of people to give to another.
+Duke This video is not really that good. The speaker doesn't explain WHAT gentrification actually is and why it's bad. She basically says that's happening and that it's not good without enough detail.
It could also be argued that the services in the gentrified area become significantly more expensive, so property owners are forced to relocate; due to their wages being inadequate to maintain the increased cost of living.
you say you are confused but you seem to comprehend pretty well.
"Life is not fair" is not a good slogan to introduce to a political/economic discussion.
In our city, this "revitalization" (buying up homes and tearing them down to build luxury condos) has allowed the city to reassess properties in those areas. Taxes are quadrupled at least and people who were paying a few hundred in taxes are now being billed several thousand, forcing them to sell their homes or lose them for back taxes. Often these people are older and have lived in their home for several decades. They seem to have no protection at all.
Up the a level geography students
Using dis ting for my NEA rn lool
some important findings whilst researching gentrification that are hardly ever mentioned=
gentrification is the privatisation of public spaces, commodification of social relations, self affiliation with identity over class politics, control/surveillance of dangerous populations...
people see themselves as middle class because they have a degree and desk job, however youre the post industrial working class adapted to a post industrial economy, better equipped to regurgitate dominant, hegemonic, neo-liberal ideology, it is understood that gentrifiers see the process of moving into and taking over an area as a battle to win... kinda sadistic.
KIRSTEEN PATON - MAKING WORKING CLASS NEIGHBORHOODS POSH. Short, academic, insightful research
3rdworldBIG The alternative is squalor
At last a decent addition to the TED talk....Simple opinions are meaningless in such a debate. Mark Paren, the free market economy that you speak of is clearly not the answer, trickle down is a myth to keep the status quo (not the 60's rock combo you understand). The adage of the market is to just pay enough to stop a riot, so this is about fair economics where all benefit from regeneration rather than a few from gentrification. More research is needed into the various consequences of various actions. The broader picture is about the rules that govern local authority land, lease holders of private land, free holders of private land all under some regulation that benefits all... to a degree. Flexibility built in as economies change. The cheap money available at present (from QE) for buy-to-let being a huge issue. Investment should not be in bricks and mortar, but new industry. All the time quick profit can be made out of low regulation property rents will remain high... Low interest rates means that savers look to property, i dont blame them, but this is the consequence of cheap money printed by private banks to lend to each other... to then build , and then expect a high return is present root of capital. So as usual its not a simple lump it or leave it...opinion. Finally when this effects the middle class then we will see change...this is now happening. Thus Trump the vote of a frustrated blue and white collar worker, the present situation is causing people to look elsewhere for answers which ultimately will benefit nobody....the 1% know this and why they occasionally throw a few crumbs...
@@Crismans843 no it’s prison
@@chriscurtis8344 Responding to a four year old post? Pathetic.
But what was to happen to places like Heygate estate? Shouldn't we accept that it was a badly designed, poorly maintained place that needed to go. It could be replaced with something better. Or are poor people relegated to live in places like this. Displacement will occur but we must make more of an effort to give the former residents of these places more choice. And better designed buildings that last. The power is too much on the side of the greedy developers.
revitalization should happen with participation of residents and the local community, otherwise you cant call it revitalization....
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't gentrification just market dynamics? Someone buys a building... upgrades it and now rents it out for a profit? Those who cannot afford it then move on.
To me it's just the same as your favourite restaurant upgrading and charging more for similar meals.
Are people allowed to force the restauranteur to lower his prices? Don't they just move on and spend their money somewhere else?
In the CBD of Cape Town, South Africa, the majority of millennials starting families (of all races) have moved into the suburbs. Affordability is the main reason. The rent prices have soared. No one protested. All we did is move out to more affordable areas. Those areas then benefitted from the migration.
Why should a certain group of people have a monopoly on an area? Isn't this another form of price fixing?
Generally gentrification has improved the security of the area and made it more accessible with public transport initiatives. That's just one example.
Am I missing something?
Generally (because it happens in different places for different reasons) it is a case that new jobs for young professionals become available in a specific place or there is an expansion of transport links to such an area. Often developers see it as an opportunity to knock down what is already there and build new "luxury" housing for the people who will move in. The problem is two-fold: #1: the new people in the area need a place to live, #2: the people in the area already shouldn't face disruption because of this. Developers only care about #1 as that's better for their return on investment.
Supply and demand would say that if you build more housing then everyone can live there but in practice that usually means nothing as the land value will increase exponentially and land value generally corresponds to rental value (assuming that poorer people rent) so affordability doesn't change plus often the current population will be displaced because of the construction anyway.
The only way to really stop gentrification is to get rid of profitability from housing, which would actually be a sensible idea for the economy as it would stop specualtive bubbles occuring and sinking the economy every 10-12 years. The only people who benefit from the system as it is are landlords, bankers and other parasites who don't actually contibute but take vast sums of money anyway.
@@Wamsicks I'm sorry but if you take profit out of someone else's work, you create nothing. You change nothing. No one's going to make anything better if all they can do is spend their own hard earned money and get nothing in return. Just like those people in the rough areas want to make more, the people fixing up a house want a return. The world isn't a charity. No one's going to fix up something just for a good deed. If you work, you expect a return.
The crowd looks really uncomfortable and conflicted
... they look like they are watching a talk and concentrating.
great talk but not entirely accurate. I worked in local government for many years dealing with repairs and issues to council housing. A large proportion of the stock was not build to last for instance, pipework built into cement walls - so when theres a leak walls in various properties need to have their opened up. Its crazy...so there are many examples when it makes sense to demolish and rebuild - better housing, better facilities etc etc. However, there clearly needs to be balance......
Perhaps Brixton’s US counterpart is a place called Over the Rhine in Cincinnati. An area once super crime ridden is now very upscale.
Why stop it?
It destroys culture and history alongside with disadvantage people. Race is also involved.
@@chirsmatthew5633 Name a culture that's lasted forever. Times change dude - the sooner you realize and accept that, the more at peace you will be with the universe.
You obviously havent listened well. Look up more videos to understand the perspectives of people living in such neighborhoods....
@@robertsteinberger5667 you don't know me. I've lived iin several neighborhoods that have become gentrified. I lived in the Maxwell street area of Chicago in the 1990s as a local college was using tiffs and immenent domain to completely take over one of the most historically significant neighborhood in Chicago. I was in a group that tried to get several building listed as historic so that the college couldn't purchase them just to build them down.
In the end, the neighborhood wad gentrified. Its inevitable. Change is the only constant in this world. Fight it if you want, but if you want to live a happy life, then just accept it.
It all starts with the right mindset. Do you revitalize a neighborhood with or without participation of the local community? Does the government care about doing something against gentrification? The thing is in usa capitalism and the free market are so holy that indeed it might be a lost cause....
White people moving out of a shitty neighborhood is white flight and is bad.
White people not wanting to invest in said shitty neighborhood filled with gang members is disinvestment and is also bad.
White people moving back into the neighborhood and investing into it by creating many businesses in it that attract white people back in is also bad.
Supply and demand. Increase the quality of a city and you increase the demand to live in it. Prices rise unless you build larger buildings. If you don't like to have old houses torn down and you don't want people to want to move there then you cannot demand people to invest in it. Because the purpose of investment is to increase value which increases prices if done correctly. (the alternative is to spend money and not manage to improve the area)
This is why I personally don't see the point of even addressing poor black neighborhoods in the US. They do not want the solution from white people and they cannot be bothered to fix it themselves. If you disagree then fix Detroit. But as I said. Improve an area => people want to move there more than they did before.
Simon Ulander I agree but still focusing on race to much. The thing is people with money take care of the town's they live in because if they didn't they would loose money. It didn't matter what skin color you are just don't play a victim and expect people to cater to you.
I'm not playing a victim. I'm demonstrating that no matter what you do they will end up complaining.
+Salvator
There's a difference between a "race issue" and just plain old reality. Seems no one wants to deal in reality because then the welfare stops.
When people figure out this isn't about race 🙄🙄🙄. This is a CLASS issue in a capitalist society...
nene. You are pretty naive if you think that you can get rid of class simply by removing capitalism. Social hierarchies are essential to human societies and there is proof of a biological basis of that behavior. And since intelligence is normally distributed you are always going to have in a free society people who end up better than other people. The only way you could theoretically remove class is to remove freedom as well. And even then you would probably have a rich political class.
These people prefer dangerous and rundown neighborhoods. Weird.
'Vibrant' is the word they use I believe. I agree, weird.
I don't understand it. Shouldn't everyone strive and want to live in a clean, civilised, beautiful environment?
@@ela7893not under the control of greedy parasitic land developers
Why would you stop a good thing? How is having run down neighborhoods a good thing?
you obviously don't understand the concept of the wage or education gap go google and then come back
yes underserved 6 year olds can go wherever they want and get educated.
+RAYE SOCIAL wouldn't that be the 6 year olds parents responsibility?
+RAYE SOCIAL and this happens to more than urban areas it also happens in rural areas when developers turn farm towns into suburban areas and ruin the whole layout and way of life that was. not everything is about you life is not fair grow a pair it's rough out there.
Salvator seeno
My generation was the first generation to be college educated in my family. We've been in America for over 100 years. This is how deep racism is. Furthermore...
If the 6 year old's parent was refused education because of their race and two generations before them weren't even allowed to be in de-segregated schools and one generation before that wasn't allowed to vote, what makes you think they would be able to seek education proficiently?
I'm fine, I'm educated and my child will be too. Your privilege is blinding you to facts. This conversation is about urban areas so I don't even know where your farm ramble comes in.
Maybe the lower classes should try getting a job so they can join the middleclass instead of whining about "gentrification". the opposite is Ghettoisation
What typically happens to displaced low-income citizens? You can't make a strong claim that gentrification is good or bad without knowing this. Are communities being gentrified whilst others become cheap and neglected at the same time or something? Any replies are welcome.
It looks like there's no AC in that building.
The answer is simple.
Let poor neighborhoods fester until everyone either leaves or dies. Then people who have something to offer can come in and make it a nice place to live without fear of people getting mad at them for making it notshitty anymore.
Thats stupid those neighborhoods can be fixed up for profit. why give that up because of some poor fools said so?
Tell that to people in NYC to pay up an apartment for $3k
You are a sociopath.
GCHQ trolls are out in force on here. Good sign that the Corporate Thugs are afraid.
Poor neighborhoods have gotten better without gentrification. Better living conditions and neighborhoods improvements does not equate to gentrification.
The problem isn't gentrification. That's literally having money return to an area that has been poorly managed by the people that caused the slumification. 🤡
Shouldn’t everything be given back to the hunter gatherers ?
Can't stop progress and as other areas become prohibitively expensive people go to areas were the realestate is cheaper and rebuild or renovate existing buildings or houses. If you are renting then eventually your priced out of the area as the landlords realize there are other people willing to pay much more.
This is going on all over, and not just in American cities. Supply and demand create high prices for existing realestate, not a bad thing, just reality.
and if your neighborhood is targeted do you just leave and move further from your family and work happily, because you are now a have not?
@@maaxrenn He's already put you on notice that as far as he's concerned, he is simply better than you are. He doesn't "have a neighborhood." The whole world is "his neighborhood," and it's his right to play with anyone's life if it benefits him. I'm just stating flatly what he would like to say to you.
Because people are by and large are having fewer children, and also as the need for commercial retail and office space dwindled in the Internet age, I can foresee a time when housing could become dirt cheap again, but I don’t expect to live long enough to see it. Possibly many of the other posters here won’t either. Much of the problem though can be laid at the feet of zoning laws which put a stranglehold even on developers. Bringing back rooming houses could help solve at least part of it.
Why would you want to stop gentrification? You can't complain that you live in a bad neighborhood with no job opportunities when a massive business opens up across the street with a "Now Hiring" sign out front. Sure, your rent will go up, and you might have to move. But that neighborhood now has the job opportunities you once complained about it not having. The worst case scenario here is that you have to move across town to a cheaper apartment. But go get a job at that new business that opened up in your former neighborhood! The cycle doesn't have to end badly.
You have a lot of nerves, telling people who lived in their homes for years to move!! Wait until the tables turn, and i hope no one else sell. Their homes. Why don't you go back to the suburbs, how about that!! This. Plan will back fire on all of you. STAY WHERE U Are People, don't sell
@@teresapalmer7900 You have nerve acting like you have a right to live in a place that you don't freak'n own! Puhleeze! GTFOH... You living in a place for a number of years doesn't have anything to do with anything if you don't own it. You don't have rights to that place, that neighborhood, and low-rent just because you've lived there for a long time. One thing gentrification does, is remove stupidity from the premises.
You're the problem. Selfish, entitled, and I hope you're humbled soon.
But it always does for the working class. Get used to the unhoused living on your corner if that’s your attitude. And don’t complain.
Um, this lady spent 20 hard minutes demonizing gentrification and I TRIED to get on her level, but well, it's sounds very much like a positive thing to me. Yea, your rent will go up, for the renters. That's the only "negative" thing you have??? Most ppl pay more to LIVE in a better place. I live in Chicago...we need some SERIOUS gentrification.
No Jahsmine...it's not like the example you gave. The bank can't upgrade your car, because it is YOUR car. Your are RENTING an apartment, it's not yours...not one bit. Your not leasing to BUY, none of that. Someone OWNS the building that your in, and the OWNERS may elect to upgrade THEIR building, and if the OWNERS do upgrade their building, they can fetch more rent, so when your lease is up, THEN the OWNERS can ask for more, and then it's your decision to stay or find another place. My rent has gone up as well, and I don't see ANY improvements, but if stay, its on me to stay.
...please see my reply, but one last thing: please keep your anti-white, racist hangups out of the commentary, just put some effort in there to do that ok? thanks
Your car isn't your car if you pay the bank to keep it
The bottom line is that owners or vendors can charge what they want regardless. This countries currency could face inflation....to make a "better country"....would you stay or just move....its that easy huh.... isn't it?
Your priveleged mind is too fogged and I'm sorry I can't help you comprehend what I'm saying....
Also I didn't make any anti-white hangups....I'm only stating the factual historical habits of whites. Sorry you don't comprehend that either. Good luck....
How to prosecute the real estate moguls, who are offenders My story, TWITTER:@SHAZ_MCGARRELL & CROWDRISE: b.e. Shazia McGarrell. Forced into "artificial poverty"
What is forgotten here is that all of these neighborhoods undergoing so-called "gentrification" had originally undergone ghettofication. The original people in these neighborhoods were also displaced. These were the people, usually, the white working class, forced to flee to the suburbs. Given a choice between ghettofication and gentrification, I would choose the latter.
But the former group mostly displaced themselves in a phenomenon known collectively as “white flight”.
@@brianbeecher3084 "White flight" implies people fleeing dangerous, unsafe conditions. People were displaced by threatening circumstances. They didn't displace themselves.
Avoid gentrification, buy or own your house.
Houses are expensive. Not everybody has the same income as others. People travel in families.
@@tylehaanderson2342 ... then you rent where you can afford it. It's just that simple. Oh, and instead of worrying about making the school basketball team, you worry about your GPA and getting a technical internship and a viable college major like other people do, so you're not continuing the cycle of poverty for the 4th generation. But that's real-world advice right?
Stacey Sutton's explanation of gentrification provides a more accurate representation of what's really going on.
anyone want to tell me the victims and beneficiaries of gentrification.
isnt that obvious?
These people howl when areas that have been turned into slums move up in the world but forget that places such as Brixton or Bethnel Green were once mixed or even middle class suburbs. The older pattern of habitation is merely reasserting itself. Good news.
Indeed, Brixton was rather chi-chi in the 1890s, favoured by 'creatives', the acting profession and such-like.
Make something of the place where you live. If you don't, others will do it for you.
Exactly
Good luck with that!
Why should we care about Brixton?
Each generation comes along and usurps the previous. Where did all the indigenous Londoners go when Brixton was colonised?
So, no solution.
So many americans here accepting blindly gentrification is a way of nature or trying to talk something good which is often clearly wrong. Why? Why is there so little empathy for people who get kicked out of the neighborhood they have been living in for all of their life? Is it too much to ask to revitalize a neighborhood with participation of its community and have measures against gentrification?
It’s not too much to ask , it’s a waste of time to ask for empathy because empathy implies a person has a heart and these devils don’t have any .
Yes, it's too much to ask. You don't limit other people moving in and you don't limit them spending their own money and building a more widely desirable space. Most people don't drive through the hood saying "Oh honey, I'd sure like to live here and raise our kids in the crime ridden area where the schools have a 40% graduation rate and people have bars on their windows".
There's a reason the better businesses, schools, and healthy eateries aren't located in those neighborhoods. Most people know that.
@@likeawhisprfound the fake news MAGA-tard
So Brixton had a TEDx... Hmm 🤔
I love gentrification. My real estate team is always looking to buy up property here in Chicago. Our main goal is not money, but bringing a higher standard of living. We have rebuilt numerous decrepit communities into safe, clean well kept environments Resulting in reduced criminal activity and an overall higher standard of living!
u sound like a sell-out. you sound delusional - gentrification overwhelmingly benefits whites
Jason Biggs and???
You will go to hell
@@Baghuul yup a sell out
@@Baghuul And destroying culture and history alongside with it for profit.
I'll let u know he went to p.a. it's a big chance we going to half to leave it for tomorrow maybe but I keep.u posted of he come late I'll call u
This is Socialist Propaganda
And who did you displace, Loretta? There is always someone with less than you.
#SaveTheBlacks