Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,037
Those who complain about (or "protest") "gentrification" are using a mildly fancy word to hide what is really driving them: they feel that if they themselves don't want to (or, sometimes, can't) pay for something nice, then nobody anywhere near them should even have the option of paying for, any enjoying, that service or product.
It's a way of using class-war/Marxist arguments to keep quality of life low - at the level where you deem it acceptable - for everyone around you. Basically, you make yourself the lowest common denominator and bring everyone else down. It's a lovely thing, that.
I don't think that's what's driving a lot of people. When I was in planning school, folks really weren't able to deal with the inherent contradiction in gentrification - the disadvantaged and low-income should have access to nice things and nice neighborhoods, and low-income housing should (by ordinance) be provided in buildings for wealthier people, but when Capitalism drives up the cost of nice things and the disadvantaged get forced out, that's bad.
There's a reason that urban studies tends to drive people to Socialist ideas - restricting Capitalism is the only way to make sure that poor people get to live in pleasant and safe areas.
Of course, you also have to deal with people who want to preserve trashiness out of nostalgia, or to maintain their own sense of superiority for having "found it first," or because when you're talking about Downtown real estate it can be a very slippery slope until everyone but the super rich gets forced out of an area, as NYC and SF are finding out.