apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

gentrification ultimately eradicates the 'seediness' of a neighborhood...but unfortunately it also pushes out hard working, positive citizens who just happen to be of a lower economic class. Not everyone who lives in a drug infested area is a drug dealer (or drug user) so it's important to look at EVERYONE who is affected by "renewal" projects.

Indeed, it's a tricky one.

The demographic of the area shifts (increase in the median income,reduction in household size etc), but what happens to all of the people who have lived there for years, sometimes decades, who can no longer afford to pay rent? It seems unfair to me that upstanding citizens get pushed out of their own homes as if they were a part of the problem..

also, what happens to the drug dealers and gang members and other seedy characters? Gentrification doesnt "solve" the problem...it just forces the problem to move to another area. Then the process starts all over again. At some point (hopefully some point soon) we will realize that the only way to really solve the problem of these less than desirable areas is to deal with the social circumstances causing the problem. Creating viable programs for gang prevention, violence prevention, drug abuse prevention etc. Sure, people don't change overnight...but the long-term pay off is lightyears better than any quick-fix or temporary masking will give us.

just my two cents.

I wish some fabulously wealthy Houstonian (are you listening, Tillman Fertidia?) would step in and fund the revitalization of Galveston. So many historic buildings have fallen into disrepair, so much history has been lost, and so much of the island has become crime-ridden ghettos. The historical foundation has managed to save some structures, but lacks the huge funds that would be required for a large-scale revitalization.

And of course, all of the deterioration was only made worse by our friend Ike. The historical foundation now has its hands full repairing the buildings they've already restored, much less others that were damaged by the storm.

It truly breaks my heart to see the island in such a state. OF course, I wouldn't want to see it overrun with Wal-Marts and condominium towers, either, but that might be the lesser of two evils at this point.

"Not everyone who lives in a drug infested area is a drug dealer (or drug user) so it's important to look at EVERYONE who is affected by "renewal" projects."

While this is certainly true, these areas remain drug infested because the residents don't act to clean it up, they look the other way and hope for the best. Funny how low income neighborhoods that are clean, well-kept, safe, etc. don't seem to fall prey to gentrification or they don't exist.

Well said, abc123--you make a good point. A socially responsible revitalization would certainly be ideal, though honestly, I don't think any amount of programs with completely solve crime problems, because unfortunately some individuals just don't want to be rehabilitated.

BUT it would certainly be nice if some programs could be put in place amidst the revitalization plans that would allow current tenants to keep their places of residence. Something that would allow them to keep their current rent in exchange for helping out in some way with the revitalization process, for instance.

And while some people would inevitably be displaced, revitaliztion isn't entirely harmful to the low-income residents-- homeowners would find the values of their homes increasing, and new jobs would be created as a result of the development of the area. It's keeping the development tasteful and under control that's the tricky part.

My frustration with "urban revitalization" in DC is that it is really just "suburbanization," particularly in the Logan/Shaw neighborhood that is the subject of this post. More likely than not, the new coffee place that opens up on the block is going to be a Starbucks. Now we've got a Giant and Target and a Best Buy just up the street. Sure, they're convenient. But they're eroding the character that made the city such a unique place to live in.

Donald in Pigtown, I don't agree that drug-infested neighborhoods remain that way because residents "don't act to clean it up." I've lived in a drug-infested neighborhood, and we used to call the cops all the time, but it did not make them go away or lessen their impact on the neighborhood. It is not useful to just blame the people who live in drug-infested neighborhoods for the state of their neighborhoods; it's a bigger problem than that.

ehatfield-- I totally agree :)

and Jenny in DC-- "It is not useful to just blame the people who live in drug-infested neighborhoods for the state of their neighborhoods; it's a bigger problem than that."

you're right too. I used to live in some pretty crappy areas myself when I was younger and I know for a FACT that my parents tried their best to help as did some of our neighbors. the PEOPLE arent the real problem. the CIRCUMSTANCES are. We are talking about how to reverse HUNDREDS OF YEARS of oppression and disenfranchisement--its not as simple as just fixing up a few historical buildings and throwing in a coffee shop or two.

Donald in Pigtown, more often than not even government-funded institutions (libraries, schools, etc..) in "ghetto" districts find that their cries for help get no response from local police squads, politicians, etc... I know first hand. Voices, in most cases, are only as strong as the money behind them. It is true that if an entire community rose up and stood their ground until action was taken on their behalf, change could be met. But that determination, sadly, is one that has been squelched by years of being ignored.

I've seen both publically funded and "natural" revitalization, and the truth is neither exists without negative effect on someone. I recently lived in Austin and saw the gentrification of the east side. Law abiding, lower income families were and still are being driven out because their property values and taxes have been inflated. The same is true in Kansas City, which is undergoing revitalization.

I'm not against an attempt to enliven "dying" or "blighted" locales, but developers miss the mark when Starbucks becomes the corner store rather than a locally owned corner grocery. Revitalization shouldn't be synonymous with big box corporate America.

Evelyn's Coffeeshop, a locally (Pigtown in Baltimore) owned business (that closed after 2 years), employed 2 part time workers in addition to its owner. Starbucks would have hired many more than that, and would have attracted other retail businesses to the area (thus hiring more people) and would probably still be open. So in a neighborhood starved for development and jobs, I'd vote for the Starbucks to move in.

Jenny in DC - I still live in a drug infested neighborhood. But I called the police every single day, and called and wrote the landlords that rented to drug dealers, and I wrote letters to my councilwoman and now (5 years later) I can sit on my stoop without worrying about stray bullets.

And HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF OPPRESSION shouldn't keep anyone from picking up the trash on the street in front of their house. But it seems to.

Pigtown, you're totally ignoring the psychology behind why people do or don't pick up the trash in front of their house. ..

you seem to think that there's kind of an "on/off" switch for humans. Unfortunately, lots of people still struggle with their egos. I totally understand that it CAN BE as simple as picking up the trash in front of your house but its not that simple for people who can't see the big, green, bright sunny picture of what could happen if we all just change our ways of life instantaneously.

Sorry abc123, but instead of making excuses for people, I hold them accountable for the choices they make.

Back to the topic of the post...what characteristics or traits exactly (bullet points would be helpful) of a neighborhood are lost when Starbucks moves in? Mom&Pop or ethnic restaurants? Architecture? Diversity of home-owners/renters? Because I lived in Columbia Heights many years before the Target/Starbucks arrived and besides the Giant, there wasn't much (that I recall) there but drugs and rock throwing kids. What exactly did the Starbucks displace?

my point about social circumstance wasn't a change of topic at all, Pigtown. How do you have a conversation about this topic without mentioning how the entire group is affected?

I guess I'm just a more sympathetic person *shrugs* ...i simply dont think the answer is to push the problem elsewhere.

I actually lived in Columbia Heights 5 yrs ago (pre Target) and remember there being some great Hispanic food. The places didn't look like much from the outside....I'm just saying, it wasn't all bad from what I remember. And it does look like a strip mall there not. I think though, in that area the speed of the change was just so fast that instead of melding with the good folks that were already there, working at improving the area, they just pushed everyone out. There was an article in the city paper that I vaguely remember that touched on this issue. It was about a long term resident of the Logan Circle area who had worked a lot to improve the area in the 80s when it was really bad. He ultimately got evicted but I don't remember the circs-anyone remember this?

JeffC—while there is a Starbucks (and Caribou) in Logan/Shaw, I don't think I agree with your "suburbanization" assessment... the majority of businesses in the area are independent. To use your example, the neighborhood's newest coffee shop is an indie shop soon to open above Miss Pixies. The area is being yuppified, sure, but it's not generic/chain-ridden.