Durning found this in Next City:
.
Ryan McLaughlin found this in The Economist:
Bring on the hipsters
Gentrification is good for the poor
.
.
… there is little evidence that gentrification is responsible for displacing the poor or minorities. Black people were moving out of Washington in the 1980s, long before most parts of the city began gentrifying. In cities like Detroit, where gentrifiers are few and far between and housing costs almost nothing, they are still leaving. One 2008 study of census data found “no evidence of displacement of low-income non-white households in gentrifying neighbourhoods”. They did find, however, that the average income of black people with high- school diplomas in gentrifying areas soared.
Wow, this is fascinating! I’ve always had trouble with the term “Gentrification”. It’s often used to as a way to attack The Rich as the villains displacing The Poor, which struck me as overly simplistic. This offers a more complex picture.
In Strathcona I’ve heard that the city has promised to maintain the “low-income character” of the neighbourhood which seems like a strange thing to say… But when you look at how the Southeast False Creek area is quickly picking up a high-income character, makes you wonder if this is in fact something worthy of regulating…
Funny. I’ve never considered Strathcona as being a low income area. Maybe I’ve been fooled by all the flowers.
Sorry, it was in regards to the entire Downtown Eastside Area, which includes Strathcona and Chinatown. You’re right, the renovated heritage homes in Strathcona look quite slick and decidedly not “low-income”.
It`s puzzling when poverty-activists protest the development of an empty parking lot, even when said development will come with significant new below-market rental housing.
Apparently gentrification isn’t the symptom of a broader social problem, gentrification IS the problem per se.