Gentrification isn't bad, amirite?

exactly, and building off this for more clarity: "gentrification is bad" does NOT mean "as an individual, you shouldn't move to this area that is being gentrified". that's how people tend to interpret it, because we're in a world where people keep trying to solve systemic issues with personal consumer choices, but that's not actually going to fix anything. instead, "gentrification is bad" is a call for "goverments and the people should collectively make decisions to improve their localities in a way that uplifts and incorporates the current residents, and we should make those improvements sustainably." it could also mean establishing rent control 😄

by Anonymous 13 hours ago

I think people should take responsibility for their own choices instead of expecting the state solving all problems while continuing to be a part of the problem. We are the state. When did responsibility go out of fashion?

by Kaylinsipes 13 hours ago

well... people should take responsibility by participating in city council meetings and being active in their local government to make the change happen. the point isn't "it's not your problem as an individual," rather, it is your problem, the way it's everyone's problem. but you can't solve it by making discrete choices as a consumer. you solve it by being an active participant in local governance.

by Anonymous 13 hours ago

I think it's more...if the underlying issue is societal in nature, you can't expect people to fix it completely with personal decisions. It's the same way we can't expect climate change to be fixed by an individual not driving their car to work if there isn't a viable transportation alternative (and the fact that most greenhouse gases are still emitted by large corporations and governmentss). Sure you could argue they can displace their lives and move somewhere with better transit/cycling or whatever but at the end of the day it's still a systemic and societal issue that led to their current decisions.

by TowerActual1787 13 hours ago

Pretending that this line of argumentation isn't just about big companies dodging responsibility for their actions.

by BrainNovel 12 hours ago

Per Webster's: "a process in which a poor area (as of a city) experiences an influx of middle-class or wealthy people who renovate and rebuild homes and businesses and which often results in an increase in property values and the displacement of earlier, usually poorer residents" It's wealth displacing poverty. Simple as that. I also think it's ethically neutral, but OP's reasoning is bizarre.

by Chaley 12 hours ago

That's fair I agree that it's systemic and as someone else said, we can't have individual solutions to systemic issues so asking people not to move somewhere isn't really a long term solution the same way we can't pit all of climate change on people driving their cars to work if the government isn't incentivizing mass transit and alternative forms of transportation.

by TowerActual1787 12 hours ago

I'm not disagreeing with your definition but I've never seen an example of an area becoming nicer without becoming more popular and therefore expensive due to supply constraints. The only way I could think of solving this would be to improve every area to the point where demand isn't driven higher due to one area being nicer than another.

by Anonymous 12 hours ago

I've been a land use planner all of my career and I could not have said this better. I had people screaming at me one time because the city had purchased an abandoned print factory and was proceeding with a developer to build luxury apartments on the site. The number of times I heard people scream "gentrification" in my face was unbelievable. Like, gentrification is a real thing and is bad, but this wasn't it. Many people use the term to describe any sort of development that isn't low income now. Like so many terms that have caught on online (looking at you, "gaslighting"), they have been so over- and misused as to become meaningless.

by Maximum_Cod 11 hours ago

You deserved that Even if a development is on an abandoned site, that doesn't make it immune to the dynamics of gentrification. Gentrification isn't just about displacing people from a specific building—it's about shifts in neighborhood demographics, rising costs of living, and the indirect pushing out of long-term, often lower-income, communities. When a luxury development goes up,even on a seemingly "neutral" site like a vacant print factory, it can still trigger property tax hikes, attract wealthier residents, and shift the political and economic priorities of the neighborhood. The frustration isn't always about that one building. It's about the broader trend: luxury housing going up while affordable housing stays stagnant or vanishes altogether. It's about communities feeling erased, priced out, or ignored in favor of investor profits and aesthetic "revitalization."

by Vivianehegmann 11 hours ago

Did that person not chose to do that job? Are they not making the conscious choice to work for a company that furthered gentrification? They simply got yelled the truth. Is "higher use" triggering property tax hikes, attracting wealthier residents that buy out low income homes, and shifting the political and economic priorities of the neighborhood? Being "well-versed" in zoning doesn't make someone immune to bias or incapable of contributing to gentrification. In fact, many planners perpetuate harm precisely because they prioritize capital investment over community stability. Just because a project is technically legal or "productive" on paper doesn't mean it isn't displacing culture, pricing out locals, or setting off ripple effects that destabilize a neighborhood. It's not rude to point that out, or if it is then its also deserved.

by Vivianehegmann 11 hours ago

Im sorry, I didn't realize it wasn't clear. I don't care if I seem rude, I have nothing to apologize to someone contributing to gentrification. You're misunderstanding the issue and honestly oversimplifying it to fit your comfort. When luxury developments go up, they absolutely influence surrounding property assessments. It's not just about the pot getting bigger, it's about who gets squeezed harder. Longtime residents in working-class neighborhoods often see their taxes spike not because they did anything but because someone threw up a luxury complex down the street. That tax hike might not hurt you, but for someone on a fixed income, it's devastating. People lose their homes over that. That's displacement. That's gentrification. You talk about your personal tax burden going down like that's the norm. It's not. Your anecdote doesn't cancel out the bigger trend. If you're lucky enough to benefit from a development wave, great. But don't use that to dismiss what happens to people who get priced out of the neighborhoods they've lived in their whole lives. And no, this isn't just about one project. Gentrification is death by a thousand cuts. One project opens the floodgates. It attracts developers, raises property values, invites speculation, changes zoning laws, and shifts who the neighborhood is for. You don't need bulldozers to push people out. You just need enough small "upgrades" that make life unaffordable for the people who actually built that community.

by Vivianehegmann 10 hours ago

It also seems like with property prices now, there is little "relief" from gentrification. If the city and the country are expensive, where can the poorer people live?

by Anonymous 10 hours ago

This is an excellent point and another key part of gentrification. When cities remove affordable housing to add "improvements" and then never add it back. The initial removal and change is not the issue on its own. The issue is the original resource ends up being gone forever.

by EmbarrassedPart 9 hours ago

Fantastic reply!

by Anonymous 9 hours ago

I agree with your split on what makes gentrification bad, but to gentrify, by definition, is to change the character of an area through wealthier people moving in. It doesn't require specific law changes, just the incentive for wealthier people to move in. This is often accomplished using laws as you mentioned, but I don't think anyone is using the term incorrectly. I think they just misunderstand the pieces of the gentrification puzzle they don't see.

by Deep_Barracuda_7174 9 hours ago

extremely prejudiced and uneducated take

by Vivianehegmann 9 hours ago

I lived on the Southwest side of Chicago for six years, I'm plenty educated.

by Hanksimonis 8 hours ago

That doesn't mean anything, still an extremely prejudiced and uneducated take

by Vivianehegmann 8 hours ago

You're short-circuiting man, making zero sense, better cool the CPU off, try throwing some water on it.

by Hanksimonis 8 hours ago

Deflection, nice. still an extremely prejudiced and uneducated take

by Vivianehegmann 7 hours ago

Literacy wasn't your strong suit I assume.

by EmbarrassedPart 7 hours ago

English is my second language, Mr. KKK

by Hanksimonis 7 hours ago

If "im not so good at the language" is the excuse for failing to properly engage with an argument I would think the significantly wiser move is to not engage in arguments in which there is a language barrier between yourself and the core concept.

by EmbarrassedPart 7 hours ago

I was kidding, man. But your argument is stupid, it relies on this fantastical image of the virtuous poor living honestly in their humble communities, whereas in fact most of "pre-gentrification" urban America was a horrific warzone, populated 60% by people trying to escape it ASAP and 40% by ultraviolent ghouls.

by Hanksimonis 6 hours ago

It is absolutely wild to: Pull a "it was a joke man" when the "joke" was..."my argument was bad because English isnt my first language" claim that a description of gentrification is "a fantastical image" and then immediately turn around and unironically claim that urban america was a "horrific warzone populated by ultraviolent ghouls" This is chess with a pigeon, and I hope anyone reading it can see that, because I don't play chess with pigeons.

by EmbarrassedPart 6 hours ago

Look up NYC murder rates in the 70's (underreported btw) and then tell me there wasn't a significant ghoul population

by Hanksimonis 6 hours ago

Thank you. People moving is not the same as people being displaced

by Anonymous 6 hours ago

Ask yourself, why are they moving out? Is this a choice or are they no longer able to afford the location they have been in for years.

by Vivianehegmann 5 hours ago

That's my point....

by Anonymous 5 hours ago

Immigrants aren't replacing long time residents or raising the cost of living. This is a dumb way to rage bait.

by Vivianehegmann 4 hours ago

Yes they are via job competition and, potentially, representation in government. Yes, they are, as seen in housing costs: demand has outstripped supply. I am in good faith here, please do the same.

by Anonymous 4 hours ago

You're not in good faith to bring up immigration without any reason. You're trying to equate immigration with gentrification, but they operate on fundamentally different scales and mechanisms. Immigration doesn't inherently displace people. Rising rents, land speculation, and policy decisions do. Immigrants don't show up and bulldoze communities to build luxury condos. They usually move into under-resourced areas because they can't afford anywhere else. Their presence doesn't cause cost increases; investor interest, rezoning, and market manipulation do. Blaming immigrants for housing costs is lazy scapegoating and completely ignores systemic failures like wage stagnation, housing underproduction, and corporate consolidation of property. Immigrants are the ones who first moved into these neighborhoods because the city pushed them into the worst parts with the lowest rents. So no, immigrants are not the gentrifiers. Developers, landlords, and bad housing policy are.

by Vivianehegmann 4 hours ago

I saw a corollary in OP's argument and a pattern of being against one and for the other. Again, not trying to be an asshole here, just feels off. Wouldn't all of your second paragraph just imply knock-on effects? Isn't wage stagnation part of that issue? Housing underproduction?

by Anonymous 3 hours ago

Chef's kiss. This is gentrification. the OP clearly doesn't understand what gentrification means

by pablo00 3 hours ago

I'm okay with the replacement of the local economy too.

by Anonymous 3 hours ago

Well, gentrification is often seen as bad by the current residents because it means they'll be priced out of their neighborhood soon. That's objectively bad to that group of people.

by Anonymous 2 hours ago

Humans havent been predominantly nomadic since the agricultural revolution ...

by Anonymous 2 hours ago

Also nomadic means to not settle down. It means not owning a house or flat and possibly even not renting one.

by Kaylinsipes 2 hours ago

Renters are for sure not nomads, unless they are renting a caravan or a donkey lol

by Anonymous 1 hour ago

You didn't describe gentrification, especially the displacement of low income people from neighborhoods. Some folks with money think, "hey, houses are pretty cheap here, it's a little rough, but we can turn this area around". They buy a house or two and renovate. Others do the same. Property values rise, the other residents are priced out of their neighborhood by taxes. Renters are bounced out of apartments because the owners can sell them to the gentrifiers, or renovate them and raise the rents. You wind up with plenty of places for coffee and artisanal gelato, lotsa young professionals, and the previous residents are gone. Yeah, you can describe that as "not perfect" if it strikes you that way.

by Anonymous 1 hour ago

This sounds more like OP is misinformed on what gentrification actually is rather than an unpopular opinion. Which is okay, it helps bring up these conversations.

by Open_Mall_3909 1 hour ago

Sure, if you discount all its negatives, not bad at all!

by Anonymous 1 hour ago

You're not describing gentrification. People with money move into poor neighborhoods, buy up property, and rent it out above the going rate for the area. This draws more people with money into the area and starts to displace people who lived there because it was affordable. This attracts businesses that cater to higher income folks and they buy out the smaller mom and pop shops and drive up the cost of living. Over the course of a decade or so, people who lived there because it was affordable can no longer afford to live there and they have to leave. It's literally rich people legally forcing poor people out of their neighborhoods because they can benefit financially from it.

by Independent_Abies195 57 minutes ago

That's literally what I said and that's literally the problem.

by Independent_Abies195 34 minutes ago

Move to an area and make it nicer? Gentrification. Move out of an area because it's getting ghetto? White flight. This isn't a winning argument. People should just do what's right for them and ignore the noise.

by Clean_Disaster 15 minutes ago

Anyone that had been to Detroit 20 years ago and has also been to Detroit recently would fully agree with you.

by jacobsoneunice 4 minutes ago

Maybe I like living in a run down ghetto.

by Acceptable_Lie 2 minutes ago