People Who Live In Suburbs: Classy, Icky, or Dudes?

We have cedar mulch and native plants in front; clover in back. No mowing, no fertilizer, minimal water.

there are thyme varieties that feel amazing on bare feet

Yeah I have felt for a while like the left take on “gentrification” has been a little incoherent.

It isn't like there is a unified "left" to create coherent takes on things. That just seems to be an awkward way of phrasing it, maybe.

The real issue is wealth inequality

I generally get super wary and skeptical when someone (esp. a white dude) says "the real issue is ..." because it comes across as paternalistic and problematic in other ways as well.

also it's a bit weird you stating that "the real issue is wealth inequality" today -- when it's become obvious yet again, that even a black person of fairly high economic status is still at risk of police violence ... because of race.

Right. To try to clarify a little, maybe "the real issue" is the wrong way to put it, I'm just skeptical about takes that primarily concern individual choices of where to move.

I mean the Christian Cooper thing happened in Central Park, it doesn't really have anything to do with gentrification or suburbanization

gentrification doesn't happen because of individual choices though

business improvement associations, property developers, city planning departments etc. make gentrification happen. albeit they are often guided by the first wave of gentrification, which is usually artists and hipsters

I mostly suspect that's an illusion, i.e. that artists are guiding the choices of planners rather than the other way around.

well I mean I live in a gentrification hotspot, the first artists to move in to this neighborhood moved here in like the 1970s, when it was a primarily working-class, primarily non-white area. condos have only been going up in the last 5 years or so, and the houses in the neighborhood were still cheap in the early 00s. i

And I totally agree with the top-down theory of gentrification, which is part of why I don't like takes about individual choices about where to move, which is sort of what this all started with. But also, at some point, whether you put the poor people in x and the rich people in y or vice versa doesn't change the underlying problem of poverty and inequality.

xp, there's no question that artists make the first move, but these things tend to happen along predictable lines that are also determined by infrastructure, transit, and development decisions. There's a reason things moved from LES to Williamsburg to Bushwick to Ridgewood and not, say, sheepshead bay.

I mostly suspect that's an illusion, i.e. that artists are guiding the choices of planners rather than the other way around.

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Friday, May 29, 2020 10:22 AM (two minutes ago)

not all cities are the same. What I'm interested to see / learn about are how city governments take activist measures to preserve culture, diversity, etc. and what works and/or has unintended consequences. San Francisco is a good case study here ... the issue of live/work housing in San Francisco and how it began with artists and ended up basically being banned. But I think this is more the exception to the rule.

Oakland is another interesting case -- government is way less prescriptive than San Francisco -- and it also illustrates another messy issue in the gentrification debate, which is that U.S. cities change.

sure income inequality is the major issue, but gentrification has specific problems, just looking at specifically where I live - the new residents bring more police, they call the police more on low-income, mentally ill, POC, drug using people, who are already victimized by the police; the new residents bring businesses that cater to them (2 third wave coffee shops like a block from where I live), it soon becomes too expensive for the businesses that served the original community to remain open (the corner store on the block went out of business, the owner is now a custodian in my building); the huge condo building makes the previously industrial block on a busy thoroughfare less suitable for sex workers, so they work on more secluded (and therefore dangerous) blocks; the clientele of the brewery that opened up (owned by a consortium of restaurateurs who live on the opposite side of town but fronted by neighborhood guys of the gentrification wave of the 00s - including a buddy of mine who owns like 0.5% of the business) has a sign on the door on the way out imploring their clientele to treat the neighbors with respect, because obviously the yuppies they attract are a bit put-off by the riff raff they encounter around the brewery and give them shit

jim otm!

domed arcologies are the way forward

multiple xp
I've converted my front yard to native Cal/low water plants, and it's great. They've actually gotten larger than I planned for, so to walk in some areas I have to step on them.

xp - yes that's all true. I just don't understand what the position to take is, other than just "don't do that stuff." Is it that well-off mostly white people should stay in the suburbs? Should they just live in other neighborhoods? Like those people will continue to exist and need to live somewhere, so what is the position to take on that, if any?

well-off mostly white people should densify already-well-off white neighborhoods instead of gentrifying affordable ones.

the single-family-homeowner Nextdoor Nazis fight tooth and nail to avoid having new, denser housing built in their neighborhoods and they must be defeated

I don't think there's ONE answer for everyone. I also think it's good if all of us white ppl of varying degrees of financial comfort experience some DIScomfort & uneasiness around gentrification and our place in it. If there was one right answer ppl would want to close the book and stop thinking about it, and we shouldn't.

It's not always the case that it's the residents, a pretty sizable group in my town has been pushing to densify our city by allowing garage apartments and secondary dwellings on properties, but the City itself has been fighting against those tooth and nail. It's kind of infuriating to see.

silby is right, the current issue is that neighborhoods keep getting more expensive so people look to more affordable neighborhoods instead. The real solution is keeping prices in check in neighborhoods that are becoming more exclusive by building more and providing a wider range of price points. This is indeed fought relentlessly on a local level, and will only happen for real if it is enforced at the state or federal level.

I think there is an actual hard policy question of whether its preferable to use policy to create integrated neighborhoods with a wide range of incomes and socioeconomics or whether it's preferable to preserve "stable" minority/working class/poor neighborhoods. And put that way it might obviously seem like the former is the answer, but a lot of anti-gentrification activism de facto favors the latter.

Like, putting aside the big capitalism question of socioeconomic inequality for a moment and assuming it continues to exist, is it better for people to live in class-stratified neighborhoods or class-integrated neighborhoods? And as much as class-integrated sounds better, it creates some problems for poor and working class people who live in them, some of which are exemplified by the gentrification problems laid out by jim - changes in policing and "quality of life" expectations, different kinds and costs of services and businesses (partly good bc maybe greater access, partly bad because increased cost), anxiety and stress created by class differences, etc.

class-integrated neighborhoods should be created in majority-wealthy erstwhile single-family-zoned sections of the city by building low-rise social housing and affordable row house, garden condominium, and low-rise condominium units with first-time, income-restricted homeownership in mind. Meanwhile majority-PoC neighborhoods of all densities, especially those created due to previous racist redlining practices and by public housing developments, should be targeted with programs to prevent displacement of longtime residents and businesses. Is how I break it down to an extent.

If you don't have single-family neighborhoods in your city, lucky you

I mean NYC has them but they are mostly on the outer ring of the city.

and a lot of them tend to be more middle class than wealthy, although there are some wealthier ones

class-integrated neighborhoods should be created in majority-wealthy erstwhile single-family-zoned sections of the city by building low-rise social housing and affordable row house, garden condominium, and low-rise condominium units with first-time, income-restricted homeownership in mind.

This is what my jurisdiction does. New buildings must include X affordable units for every Y at-market units (encouraged by tax advantages for doing so). And new development includes a mix of housing types and densities (mandated by codes and zoning). I am sure there is quibbling about exactly what X and Y should be, but in terms of the people I interact with in the neighborhood, and my children's school peers, it is working to some extent.

but are you keeping your NYC place

― mom tossed in kimchee (quincie), Friday, May 29, 2020 7:48 AM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

No selling

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Friday, May 29, 2020 2:59 PM (five hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

You want it?

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Friday, May 29, 2020 2:59 PM (five hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

Nah I am planning to abandon DC to contribute to crippling gentrification of SF in about two years

i think SF has passed "gentrification" at this point

True that

for north-american residents here: doesn't moving to the suburbs require getting a car? and for families, more than one car? isn't that a reason enough to think that people moving to the suburbs are doing something bad?

well, 1. #notallsuburbs - I lived carlessly in a suburb for ten years (albeit an inner burb).

but 2. are you really saying people should only be allowed to live in cities? Or are you saying that people are allowed to not live in a city, but that they are bad people?

when i was younger (lol) i was so against suburbs. now that i've managed to only ever get jobs in suburbs and have driven probably 150k more miles than i would have if i had lived closer, i would like to live in a suburb.

How I break it down to an extent is that driving is a net evil but also because of how big this country is and how spread out ppl are, in almost everywhere that's not a top tier city, driving is necessary. So the best model for remedying it is a harm-reduction one, I think.

More people should live in cities, govt should build/maintain more robust public transit networks and NOT bigger roads and highways, cars should be smaller and more efficient/electric, gas should cost more, people should drive less, stuff we consume should come from nearby and while we're at it we should consume less. Walking & biking should be massively more accessible & safer. Development should center around walkable, human-scale commercial centers with multi-use zoning (see silby, above). Employers shouldn't be incentivized to put their businesses 20 miles out of town in an office park only accessible by a major highway, and developers should be barred from building them. Idk what did I miss?

otm

people are allowed to not live in cities, but should acknowledge that they are doing something bad, for the environment chiefly, but also for poor people.

but coming back to in orbit's post,"how big this country is and how spread out ppl are" describes the usa but the size doesn't necessitate the sprawl. people have chosen to sprawl and it's identified (overseas for example) as "the american lifestyle". but it's a choice to have detached housing with individual gardens. & if you choose to live like that, you're part of a problem.

In orbit massively otm

people are allowed to not live in cities, but should acknowledge that they are doing something bad, for the environment chiefly, but also for poor people.

i am poor

the current pandemic kinda weakens the “more people should live in cities” argument tbh

& you have a car? xp

anyway yeah in orbit is otm/realistic about it

xp yeah that my parents bought for me

i hate it and i hate driving

climate change kinda weakens the "ac & heating are bad for the environment" argument tbh

the current pandemic kinda weakens the “more people should live in cities” argument tbh

― trapped out the barndo (crüt), Saturday, May 30, 2020 9:35 AM (one minute ago)

Nah I don’t really think so.

it's a choice to have detached housing with individual gardens. & if you choose to live like that, you're part of a problem.

Everyone is part of the problem tho

right, so we should just say fuck it & live in detached housing & drive cars

i'm into hearing more from people like in orbit who want to work toward realistic goals and understand the situation instead of self righteous philosophy professors who moved to france tbr. but i guess that's keeping in spirit with the thread beginning so