"The thing we call gentrification raises large issues for London - and all the UK’s growing cities - and opposing it like trying to hold back the sea. Dealing with it requires a constructive, practical, flexible political response that helps to shape this force of urban change to best and most equitable effect. The politics of protest aren’t up to it."
Great post. We need to move the needle on the "gentrification" (sorry!) conversation. Also, this study I saw (a rigorous causal study) said that new building causes rents to increase in the short term, and then decrease them in the medium to long-term. That is, demand effects dominate in the short-term and supply effects dominate in the long-term. https://www.drstephenday.com/p/what-does-new-building-do-to-rent?r=3hz3xy
More housing, yes! I 100% agree that people are not the problem when it comes to housing policy/supply - but people are at the root when it comes to the development OR deterioration of community in neighborhood. Which I don’t think should be separated from a “gentrification” conversation and was a bit disappointed to see missing from your piece.
How can we fight for better housing policy together, if we aren’t building empathy, relationships and community in the neighborhoods we live in? That isn’t a policy problem, that’s a “move into a neighborhood and not talk to my neighbors” problem. Something I’ve seen happen in several buildings I’ve lived in (most explicitly in Crown Heights from 2016-18) as tenant demographics change.
While I agree with the overall sentiment of your writing here, I worry that the tone of “people are just trying to live” because it makes it seem like the impact one has on a community one moves into is a passive byproduct of “just trying to live” vs an active choice of “how one lives.”
"but people are at the root when it comes to the development OR deterioration of community in neighborhood. Which I don’t think should be separated from a 'gentrification' conversation and was a bit disappointed to see missing from your piece."
>> It wasn't missing from the piece, and was stated plainly at the top. I directly named this as one of the things that people mean when they say gentrification: "Changing neighborhood character (language, art, etc)...The destruction of close-knit, high density social and kin networks." My essay makes this point: whatever someone means by gentrification, vast supply increase is required to address it properly--otherwise you're driving with the parking brake on. I don't dismiss any of those problems, but this was not an essay about them. It was an essay to drive home this point: getting more supply online is an emergency, and people should not be afraid to emphasize that as their primary point in the housing shortage debate.
Interestingly, NYC is where I've *least* heard the term "gentrification"!
See also London: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2016/oct/24/lets-get-our-gentrification-story-straight
"The thing we call gentrification raises large issues for London - and all the UK’s growing cities - and opposing it like trying to hold back the sea. Dealing with it requires a constructive, practical, flexible political response that helps to shape this force of urban change to best and most equitable effect. The politics of protest aren’t up to it."
Well said!
Preach! 🙌
📢
Great post. We need to move the needle on the "gentrification" (sorry!) conversation. Also, this study I saw (a rigorous causal study) said that new building causes rents to increase in the short term, and then decrease them in the medium to long-term. That is, demand effects dominate in the short-term and supply effects dominate in the long-term. https://www.drstephenday.com/p/what-does-new-building-do-to-rent?r=3hz3xy
More housing, yes! I 100% agree that people are not the problem when it comes to housing policy/supply - but people are at the root when it comes to the development OR deterioration of community in neighborhood. Which I don’t think should be separated from a “gentrification” conversation and was a bit disappointed to see missing from your piece.
How can we fight for better housing policy together, if we aren’t building empathy, relationships and community in the neighborhoods we live in? That isn’t a policy problem, that’s a “move into a neighborhood and not talk to my neighbors” problem. Something I’ve seen happen in several buildings I’ve lived in (most explicitly in Crown Heights from 2016-18) as tenant demographics change.
While I agree with the overall sentiment of your writing here, I worry that the tone of “people are just trying to live” because it makes it seem like the impact one has on a community one moves into is a passive byproduct of “just trying to live” vs an active choice of “how one lives.”
"but people are at the root when it comes to the development OR deterioration of community in neighborhood. Which I don’t think should be separated from a 'gentrification' conversation and was a bit disappointed to see missing from your piece."
>> It wasn't missing from the piece, and was stated plainly at the top. I directly named this as one of the things that people mean when they say gentrification: "Changing neighborhood character (language, art, etc)...The destruction of close-knit, high density social and kin networks." My essay makes this point: whatever someone means by gentrification, vast supply increase is required to address it properly--otherwise you're driving with the parking brake on. I don't dismiss any of those problems, but this was not an essay about them. It was an essay to drive home this point: getting more supply online is an emergency, and people should not be afraid to emphasize that as their primary point in the housing shortage debate.