Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The basic definition of Gentrification is renovation of an unprosperous neighborhood the process of transforming an unprosperous neighborhood of buildings needing repair into a more prosperous one, for example, through investment in remodeling buildings or houses. But is it really a good thing for low income neighborhoods? Sure you fix buildings and plant trees in the streets and also clean up the neighborhoods to make it look more cleaner and beautiful. But what about the cost of such projects?

Can low income residents afford the costs of keeping their neighborhood in spotless conditions? What about the politics behind? Big business love to open shops and business to get more customers. But that causes rents and living conditions in low income neighborhood to raise higher. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Comments.

as long as the area is :

A) In a dilapedated state
B) NOT of historical importance such as valuable masonery that could be destroyed or altered in the process
C) a health hazard

then yes i agree with it;

However its up to the local coucil or the Govt. to mantain it If the land is not privately owned.

This is an Important Distinction.

If its privatly owned, such as a block of apartments, i would agree for the occupants/ tenants to assume responsability to share the burden of petty maintenance. However such conditions would need to be stipulated in a contract. Usually its the Landlord who assumes responsability for the maintenance at no extra charge. But in case of Major alternations, such as installing an elevator, removal and relaying tiles.......etc. its a difficult question.

Usually a privatly owned land, if constructed upon for accomodating/retail/work facilities, has to be given certain specifications by the Govt. as the land will be utilised by other members of the general public. This 'shared' land would need to be certified by the relevant Planning authoroty, as what the Landowner may want to construct, may be to detrement to the general public he intends to lease the premises or allow the usage of its public areas.
Tenants may report the Landlord to the authoroties for failing to adhere to the specifications enlisted in the permit.

I dont agree having to fork out extra money to lay asphalt in a privatly owned street that would have to give access to the premises i am about to lease. thats up to the landlord to make sure its done.

As for the Politics involved, meh, its a common problem. A landowner with politic connections may abuse of his 'friends' and even may go asfar as appropriating himself of public land to for EG. create a Car Park for his customers. All of this done with a relevant permit !

If its a good or bad thing , its all up to the persons effected. Neighbourhoods should form alliances and groups to voice their opinion in situations like these and they must prepare for lenghty debates. Good lawyers like to defer scheduled items, agendas to be discussed in order to make it an uphill struggle

I guess it is good in a way and bad in another way!JM

Wouldn't gentrification push up rents and property taxes? And the people who would be effected by gentrification would be the ones who could least afford that.

glare

That's what happens most of the time. California for example has many communities that live in poverty or low income houses. But like CGC mention if the area has historical value then gratification can't apply. Something that CGC also mention was private neighborhoods. Now that isn't sucha a bad idea, but if you can afford it...go for it. To privatise a neighborhood is far more expensive than gentrification. No way can people with low paid wages would afford living in a private neighborhood.

I dont know how the things are in the states, whether you have local councils or planning authoroties....etc. but i assume that there is some sort of nucleus of people in charge of an area IF its publicly owned.

normally down here we correspond to the authoroties for almost every matter of development that goes on; namely Demolition, Construction,
Roads closed due to work in progress, Asphalting, Misappropriation of land or parking bays........etc. up to petty observations such as the refuse collection schedule.

In case of an Urgent matter, such as the need of Gentrification, a neighbours collective union (a group) would have more of a chance in obtaining a prolific outcome, as individuals' opinion, im sorry to say, are seldom taken notice of. Low income residents have the right, as much as high income communities, to live in clean, well kept areas. But are the Low income residents prepared to go through meetings held for their benefit ? do they really want the 'hood' to be a pleasant one, patrolled by officers, swept by street-sweepers and frequented by outsiders ?

After all authoroties will shy away from fixing up a place they know will deteriorate in 9-12 months. How can you blame them if its members of your particular community who vandalise, disregard and ignore........the rope needs to be pulled in one direction aye !

It's good for the city but bad for the people who live in that neighborhood. The price of living there rises and the poor people who used to live there can no longer afford it... I see it all the time. The only way to permanently get rid of a poor neighborhood is for the people who live there to either 1) move out of that city 2) become richer. Neither one of those things ever seems to happen, so until then by making a neighborhood nicer you're not fixing the poor neighborhood, just shifting it around.