My personal experience in Chicago is that the government had public housing projects that generated high crime rates and drove people away that ran in a ring around the city center, but otherwise were in premium locations. Then large public housing projects went out of favor and they were largely torn down and removed from 2000-2015. As the crime rates in these neighborhoods declined, suddenly the reason why people wouldn’t live in these places was removed and the intrinsic value of property so close to the city center skyrocketed.
It’s sort of like being the person who buys the really cheap used car that’s always in disrepair. The reason you got that vehicle so cheap, is because it’s dilapidated. If they had built the car to last, you wouldn’t have been able to afford it anyways. If you live in the cheapest neighborhood then it’s going to be a neighborhood that has problems. If they remove the problems then the value of the property is probably going to increase and suddenly you can’t afford it anymore.
I wish the term 'displacement' would be more commonly used, because it encapsulates the negative aspects of gentrification. On the other hand, gentrification has objectively positive aspects (improvements in safety, amenities, livability of a neighborhood). But it's too late now.
It's long become a meaningless term in housing discourse. More or less boils down to "the vibes are off" When millionaires who live in houses started describing non-millionaires being allowed to live in apartments nearby as "gentrification", you know it's time for a new word.
That's interesting. I was hoping to see some comparison of their model with the data in the paper, but haven't found it (I looked at the figures). That's a bit disappointing...
My personal experience in Chicago is that the government had public housing projects that generated high crime rates and drove people away that ran in a ring around the city center, but otherwise were in premium locations. Then large public housing projects went out of favor and they were largely torn down and removed from 2000-2015. As the crime rates in these neighborhoods declined, suddenly the reason why people wouldn’t live in these places was removed and the intrinsic value of property so close to the city center skyrocketed.
It’s sort of like being the person who buys the really cheap used car that’s always in disrepair. The reason you got that vehicle so cheap, is because it’s dilapidated. If they had built the car to last, you wouldn’t have been able to afford it anyways. If you live in the cheapest neighborhood then it’s going to be a neighborhood that has problems. If they remove the problems then the value of the property is probably going to increase and suddenly you can’t afford it anymore.
I wish the term 'displacement' would be more commonly used, because it encapsulates the negative aspects of gentrification. On the other hand, gentrification has objectively positive aspects (improvements in safety, amenities, livability of a neighborhood). But it's too late now.
It's long become a meaningless term in housing discourse. More or less boils down to "the vibes are off" When millionaires who live in houses started describing non-millionaires being allowed to live in apartments nearby as "gentrification", you know it's time for a new word.
That's interesting. I was hoping to see some comparison of their model with the data in the paper, but haven't found it (I looked at the figures). That's a bit disappointing...