10 thoughts on “What’s actually wrong with gentrification?”
Rob
‘Gentrification’ is perfectly fine for the Left if the area is white.
‘Gentrification’ is secretly perfectly fine for the Left if the area is black, as they are the ones moving there.
Jonathan
Given that the English have been largely ethnically cleansed from London , this is pretty rich:
” But on the other, families and businesses worry that their facades do not fit in this shiny new dawn, that a form of social “cleansing” is under way.”
Immigrants complaining that British people are returning to their own capital city? Clownworld.
Alan_t
Would they have preferred returning WHL to the way it was before the Taylor Report following Hillsborough?
There’s always someone looking for something to complain about, and when there are no real problems, they have to make something up
SadButMadLad
Gentrification means poor workers can’t afford to move to the area according SJWers. No mention that it benefits poor workers whose property has increased in value meaning they can now move to a nicer more gentrified area. The left can accept the undertrodden can escape their clutches. The poor must always be the victim
ovoid
Gentrification is a code word for less crime, better schools, public services that sort of work, keeping the local library open.
There are downsides. Fewer children, lower vaccination rates, bike shops, mumsnet, estate agents.
MyBurningEars
SBML
“No mention that it benefits poor workers whose property has increased in value meaning they can now move to a nicer more gentrified area.”
In fairness, especially in London, poor workers are much more likely to be renting than owning. Increased rents driving them somewhere cheaper’n’nastier, away from their previous community/work etc, is not necessarily an “escape”.
bloke in spain
You gonna gentrify Tottenham High Rod, good luck! Innit.
Gamecock
Jimmy Carter’s urban renewal, to fight “urban decay,” morphed into ‘gentrification’ when the federal government got out of the business.
It seems now that urban decay is preferable to displacement from gentrification. Fine. But it involves an acceptance of urban decay. Protection of destructive forces. Displacement of destructive forces seems like a good idea to me.
Bloke no Longer in Austria
Best description I’ve heard of White Hart Lane
A spaceship landing in a slum.
Bloke in North Dorset
Gentrification means the new people are more likely to have worked hard and want a better life for themselves and their children. They are less likely to be clients of the State and so unlikely to vote left wing. Ergo it is a Bad Thing.
‘Gentrification’ is perfectly fine for the Left if the area is white.
‘Gentrification’ is secretly perfectly fine for the Left if the area is black, as they are the ones moving there.
Given that the English have been largely ethnically cleansed from London , this is pretty rich:
” But on the other, families and businesses worry that their facades do not fit in this shiny new dawn, that a form of social “cleansing” is under way.”
Immigrants complaining that British people are returning to their own capital city? Clownworld.
Would they have preferred returning WHL to the way it was before the Taylor Report following Hillsborough?
There’s always someone looking for something to complain about, and when there are no real problems, they have to make something up
Gentrification means poor workers can’t afford to move to the area according SJWers. No mention that it benefits poor workers whose property has increased in value meaning they can now move to a nicer more gentrified area. The left can accept the undertrodden can escape their clutches. The poor must always be the victim
Gentrification is a code word for less crime, better schools, public services that sort of work, keeping the local library open.
There are downsides. Fewer children, lower vaccination rates, bike shops, mumsnet, estate agents.
SBML
“No mention that it benefits poor workers whose property has increased in value meaning they can now move to a nicer more gentrified area.”
In fairness, especially in London, poor workers are much more likely to be renting than owning. Increased rents driving them somewhere cheaper’n’nastier, away from their previous community/work etc, is not necessarily an “escape”.
You gonna gentrify Tottenham High Rod, good luck! Innit.
Jimmy Carter’s urban renewal, to fight “urban decay,” morphed into ‘gentrification’ when the federal government got out of the business.
It seems now that urban decay is preferable to displacement from gentrification. Fine. But it involves an acceptance of urban decay. Protection of destructive forces. Displacement of destructive forces seems like a good idea to me.
Best description I’ve heard of White Hart Lane
A spaceship landing in a slum.
Gentrification means the new people are more likely to have worked hard and want a better life for themselves and their children. They are less likely to be clients of the State and so unlikely to vote left wing. Ergo it is a Bad Thing.