When an area becomes rich it typically doesn't happen by enriching the people already there, but by pushing them out and replacing them. Of course longtime inhabitants want to "go back to its divey roots", they're directly threatened by the move away from those roots, and a return would provide relief. The gentrifiers are the only ones who would see it as a negative. Keep in mind you're still an outsider and gentrifier in the context of Austin. You're a well-educated white man originating from a rich neighborhood of Dallas. You're exactly the kind of person they're afraid of, and not without reason. Things that are good for you are not necessarily good for Austin as it was or the people who live(d) there.There's a huge backlash against basically everything that's making Austin one of the richest and most progressive cities in the US right now. I swear half the people who have been living here for 20+ years would like the city to go back to its divey roots even if we all suffer for it. Totally clueless.
No they aren't. I mean, some are, a small few -- but the rest are vastly benefiting from living in a City with a capital C. I could list a dozen ways. And Austin has handled the transition smoothly. ?!?When an area becomes rich it typically doesn't happen by enriching the people already there, but by pushing them out and replacing them. Of course longtime inhabitants want to "go back to its divey roots", they're directly threatened by the move away from those roots, and a return would provide relief.
Keep in mind you're still an outsider and gentrifier in the context of Austin. You're a well-educated white man originating from a rich neighborhood of Dallas. You're exactly the kind of person they're afraid of, and not without reason. Things that are good for you are not necessarily good for Austin as it was or the people who live(d) there.
Low-rent areas don't become high-rent areas without displacement. The very existence of an anti-gentrification movement proves that many people have been harmed in some way, enough to make them angry and organized. It's not as bad in Austin as SF, but it's happening. I was pretty sure that was you? I seem to remember something like that. Anyway, the point is, someone acting as a gentrifier even if they don't intend to isn't going to directly experience the problems associated with gentrification, because they are on the positive end. What a gentrifier perceives as good for them and good for the area is pretty well aligned with what the previous residents see as problematic things that force them out.No they aren't. I mean, some are, a small few -- but the rest are vastly benefiting from living in a City with a capital C. I could list a dozen ways. And Austin has handled the transition smoothly.
?!?
Yeah, but you're taking the Luddite view. Displacement is inevitable and also necessary. It's dwarfed by the benefits. San Francisco is different from Austin, both in scale and speed of gentrification -- and I do think it's a shame that such a cool city is changing so quickly. But San Francisco has changed drastically before and that's part of what makes it interesting. I'm in the middle. Family's been in Austin for about 65 years, and I've grown up watching Austin institutions that I loved disappear because they can't compete. But I also appreciate, say, having an international airport. I appreciate everything UT has done for Austin. We're a major cultural center and so on.I was pretty sure that was you? I seem to remember something like that. Anyway, the point is, someone acting as a gentrifier even if they don't intend to isn't going to directly experience the problems associated with gentrification, because they are on the positive end. What a gentrifier perceives as good for them and good for the area is pretty well aligned with what the previous residents see as problematic things that force them out.
Perhaps more of the neoluddism of Peter Frase & al. Displacement is neither inevitable nor necessary, and the benefits of displacement are received by the displacers, not the displaced. There exist alternatives, but they often aren't feasible within capitalism. The Luddites were right about their own situation: they did experience hardship as a direct result of new technologies. Yes, society eventually moved on and labor requirements were reduced in that specific sector, but a lot of people suffered in the meantime. In the case of the Luddites whose labor was displaced by machines, it may have been better to reduce working hours first instead of abruptly employing fewer people. In the case of gentrified neighborhoods, it's probably better to increase the available housing, wages, and social services, rather than hike rents and evict.Yeah, but you're taking the Luddite view. Displacement is inevitable and also necessary. It's dwarfed by the benefits.
I don't know about that. If you take displacement as an inevitable side effect of migration (empirically) and migration as a necessary human function... Not always, not by any means. Short term/long term, also. Gradual changes are mostly better than instant ones. But we don't always get a choice. I have a lot of big thoughts about the changing nature of structural unemployment (and structural displacement, as is the case here) which can be summarized thus: in the 21st century, it's not going away; in fact it will intensify, and that intensification is caused by factors that in the long run will be very, very good for us. In the short term, people get hurt, because that's what structural changes do. The locals in San Francisco are getting hurt. One solution is careful government intervention to mitigate (but not stop!) the effects of the changing structure. In this case, that's zoning laws, housing controls, wages and so on in San Francisco. I'm not against that by any means, as long as it seeks rather to smooth the trend, not reverse it.Displacement is neither inevitable nor necessary
and the benefits of displacement are received by the displacers, not the displaced.
The Luddites were right about their own situation: they did experience hardship as a direct result of new technologies. Yes, society eventually moved on and labor requirements were reduced in that specific sector, but a lot of people suffered in the meantime. In the case of the Luddites whose labor was displaced by machines, it may have been better to reduce working hours first instead of abruptly employing fewer people.
I was with your first post, but there's no way it can be said that Austin "has handled the transition smoothly". They've done worse than handle it badly, in fact: they haven't handled it at all, choosing instead to just keep on keeping on and ignore the drastic population change entirely, letting the chips fall where they may. One example out of many: they are just beginning to expand MoPac -- this has needed doing since it became over capacity 10, 15 years ago -- and they're doing it in a way that will price even more old Austinites out of the city. I can see this, and I'm of the class that would probably be considered a gentrifying force, even though -- like most good Austin hipsters -- I was here before that really became a thing. ;-)
Relative to SF it's been smooth. MoPac's kinda an enigma and I'm not sure there's a good solution there. Either exercise eminent domain or watch the traffic take control of the city. What I meant is that Austin has become a City rather than a city, all while keeping an amazing cultural scene, a few "ethnic neighborhoods" (sorry but it gets the point across), international influences, etc. In my opinion it's been a smashing success so far. One thing we have in common with SF is people getting priced out of downtown. I don't know why anyone's surprised, honestly. That's kinda what happens everywhere. SF has its Google transports and $8 coffee shops; we have our condominiums all along the lake. But minimum_wage's (and everyone else's according to the votes) refusal to acknowledge that these things are linked to very specific and obvious economic benefits is baffling to me.
I don't think they're refusing to acknowledge that there are economic benefits helping the city. What they're doing is pointing out who those benefits are helping (newcomers from elsewhere), and who they're hurting (people who've grown up here and possibly have to leave). You're right, and they're right, because neither set of points runs at cross purposes. But minimum_wage's (and everyone else's according to the votes) refusal to acknowledge that these things are linked to very specific and obvious economic benefits is baffling to me.
No but I completely disagree with that. First of all, not everyone leaves. A lot of local "anti-gentrifiers" simply adapt. And they sure as shit benefit from the city's growth, whether they're farsighted enough to see it or not. If you're forced to leave -- absolutely forced -- then maybe you don't benefit at all. (Although if this process is inevitable then I'm not at all sure about that.) To be fair many more people have been forced to leave SF from the sound of it than Austin.
I'm with you. I suppose it's because I am (for another short while, anyway) a gentrifier. I moved into an abandoned space a few years ago, and I like to think that my outrageous tax bill that I've been paying to the city of Detroit since then (both income and property) has been marginally good for the city (as well as the taxes paid by all the businesses that I support). The city needs money to survive, and the only people who can pay are the people who have a positive income. I'm not sure where else it comes from. Cities can't print their own script. I always have a good laugh at the people in my city who scorn gentrifiers and then complain that city services are so shitty. I love irony.