Spike Lee and Gentrification: Chicago Issue (Manhattan, Avon: real estate, condos, buying)

[Bluefox]

Originally Posted by Raphael07

Yes, however, gentrification does nothing to address the poverty that exists in the neighborhoods it affects. It simply removes the poor, usually without any benefit for them. They lose homes, schools, places of worship, and are simply thrown somewhere else.

Yes, but without sounding callous, that's hardly something unique to Chicago. Look at NYC, Boston, San Francisco, LA, DC, etc. It's just a fact of life in large and established cities in this day and age. I would even say gentrification has a much milder effect on the poor in Chicago than in some of these other cities.

[urza216]

Originally Posted by williepotatoes

Gentrifiers aren't necessarily rich, most that I've known are just people with good paying jobs who also spend a whole lot of that cush on the streets. Chicago would be a dark hole without the commercial vitality and wealth that they create.

"That kush" is high-grade marijuana. Either that was a really odd typo or you are trying to use lingo you heard from a rap song and failing..

Just an FYI

[Raphael07]

Originally Posted by Bluefox

Yes, but without sounding callous, that's hardly something unique to Chicago. Look at NYC, Boston, San Francisco, LA, DC, etc. It's just a fact of life in large and established cities in this day and age. I would even say gentrification has a much milder effect on the poor in Chicago than in some of these other cities.

Just because it's happening everywhere else doesn't make it right, or acceptable. Cities anymore seem to be vying to become nothing more than overgrown country clubs. They are all fighting in a global competition that no one is ever going to win. Look at Manhattan, London, and Paris. They are all effectively places that are inaccessible to even the middle class now! Is that where we want our cities to go? Many people said the reason gentrification was good was because it raised property values. At what point does the goal of raising property values stop? When only the top 50% of society can use those places? The top 25%? The top 10%? Our cities need to be for all people, not just a few who can spend millions on a penthouse or a Gold Coast mansion. The best cities are the ones who are for everyone. Revitalize neighborhoods, revitalize people, but do not gentrify.

[williepotatoes]

Originally Posted by urza216

"That kush" is high-grade marijuana. Either that was a really odd typo or you are trying to use lingo you heard from a rap song and failing..

Just an FYI

Cush is old school street slang for money, it pre-dates hip-hop.

But then again so do I, by a lot.

[MassVt]

Originally Posted by Raphael07

Just because it's happening everywhere else doesn't make it right, or acceptable. Cities anymore seem to be vying to become nothing more than overgrown country clubs. They are all fighting in a global competition that no one is ever going to win. Look at Manhattan, London, and Paris. They are all effectively places that are inaccessible to even the middle class now! Is that where we want our cities to go? Many people said the reason gentrification was good was because it raised property values. At what point does the goal of raising property values stop? When only the top 50% of society can use those places? The top 25%? The top 10%? Our cities need to be for all people, not just a few who can spend millions on a penthouse or a Gold Coast mansion. The best cities are the ones who are for everyone. Revitalize neighborhoods, revitalize people, but do not gentrify.

Amen. All gentrification symbolizes is poverty being transported to some other area. and when the fad of urban living fades, the process will reverse itself..

America does not need any more "boutique" cities. Enough already.

[baileyvpotter]

Originally Posted by Raphael07

Just because it's happening everywhere else doesn't make it right, or acceptable. Cities anymore seem to be vying to become nothing more than overgrown country clubs. They are all fighting in a global competition that no one is ever going to win. Look at Manhattan, London, and Paris. They are all effectively places that are inaccessible to even the middle class now! Is that where we want our cities to go? Many people said the reason gentrification was good was because it raised property values. At what point does the goal of raising property values stop? When only the top 50% of society can use those places? The top 25%? The top 10%? Our cities need to be for all people, not just a few who can spend millions on a penthouse or a Gold Coast mansion. The best cities are the ones who are for everyone. Revitalize neighborhoods, revitalize people, but do not gentrify.

and exactly.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Raphael07

Just because it's happening everywhere else doesn't make it right, or acceptable. Cities anymore seem to be vying to become nothing more than overgrown country clubs. They are all fighting in a global competition that no one is ever going to win. Look at Manhattan, London, and Paris. They are all effectively places that are inaccessible to even the middle class now! Is that where we want our cities to go? Many people said the reason gentrification was good was because it raised property values. At what point does the goal of raising property values stop? When only the top 50% of society can use those places? The top 25%? The top 10%? Our cities need to be for all people, not just a few who can spend millions on a penthouse or a Gold Coast mansion. The best cities are the ones who are for everyone. Revitalize neighborhoods, revitalize people, but do not gentrify.

I agree with you, but I think Chicago as a boutique city is greatly overblown. The bungalow belts are chock full of pretty regular folk. If there's any part of the City I think is going to unexpectedly get all swanky, it's all along the river. The day the City finally starts disinfecting the water, it's game on for developers.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

I agree with you, but I think Chicago as a boutique city is greatly overblown. The bungalow belts are chock full of pretty regular folk. If there's any part of the City I think is going to unexpectedly get all swanky, it's all along the river. The day the City finally starts disinfecting the water, it's game on for developers.

Besides the river area, what are the new gentrifying areas in Chicago?

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by urza216

Also - Black people leaving rough areas on the south and west sides is upward mobility. White flight is white people moving out because they are afraid. It's ridiculous and kinda racist to suggest that's the same thing..

Aren't the black folks leaving the south and west sides fleeing for the same reasons the white folks did? Crime, safety, schools etc.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by urza216

Also - Black people leaving rough areas on the south and west sides is upward mobility. White flight is white people moving out because they are afraid. It's ridiculous and kinda racist to suggest that's the same thing..

What about Bronzeville, that area had seen an influx of black, white-collar professionals; where is the outrage about these folks moving in? Of course, this was pre-depression era, say 2006. Not sure what's going on down there now but a lot of foreclosures.