Gentrification in America [[including city data)

[emu steve]

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/ge...ng-report.html

Not much has happened in Detroit [[no surprise). Only a few census tracts have gentrified.

The report has detailed data on 50 cities.

[Pickford-Bentler]

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/ge...ng-report.html

Not much has happened in Detroit [[no surprise). Only a few census tracts have gentrified.

The report has detailed data on 50 cities.

Like all formulas, I believe that there is a bit of statistical noise because census tract 5436 in Brightmoor is not what one would associate with gentrification. Possibly, the removal of so many homes in that area skewed the value of the remaining homes up such that the average of the tract went up. Anyhow, I doubt a Starbucks will be opening on the corner of Burt Rd and Fenkell any time soon. All kidding aside, that is a rather informative link, thanks.

[EastsideAl]

So, what's going on around Schaefer and Schoolcraft that I don't know about?

Actually, very little about the Detroit map shown on that site makes much sense. The areas they show "gentrifying" since 2000 are the area directly north of Indian Village [[ummm, no), Brush Park [[which I suppose could be true for the few people who live there, but more so than the west side of Woodward?), Corktown around Michigan Ave. [[by far the most plausible), the area north of Woodbridge [[also somewhat plausible, although Ford Hospital has torn down most of the north part of that neighborhood for parking), the area directly west of Highland Park [[huh?), the aforementioned area around Schaefer and Schoolcraft, and Brightmoor south of Fenkell [[with its median household income of $14,677/year). However, the west part of downtown, and midtown up to MLK [[and west of Second up to Forest), are shown as "not gentrifying", as is most of Woodbridge.

All of which leaves me somewhat doubtful of their methodology.

[Dexlin]

The definitions - whether one wants to debate it or not - are pretty explicitly spelled out:

Gentrifying Census Tracts: These lower-income Census tracts experienced significant growth in both home values and educational attainment. To be eligible to gentrify, a tract's median household income and median home value needed to fall within the bottom 40th percentile of all tracts within a metro area at the beginning of the decade. Tracts considered to have gentrified recorded increases in the top third percentile for both inflation-adjusted median home values and percentage of adults with bachelors’ degrees.


Tracts Not Gentrifying: These Census tracts met eligibility criteria, but did not experience enough growth in educational attainment and median home values relative to other tracts within a metro area to have gentrified.


Not Eligible Tracts: These tracts, typically middle and upper-income neighborhoods, did not meet the initial criteria for gentrification. To be eligible to gentrify, a tract's median household income and median home value both needed to be in the bottom 40th percentile of all tracts within a metro area at the start of a decade. Tracts with less than 500 residents or missing data were also considered not eligible.

Basically, they take the bottom-of-the barrel as those "eligible" for gentrification in their view. Gentrification can technically take place in just about any track; this seems to be a rather narrow definition weighted toward how far the lowest-of-the-low came along.

[erikd]

"It’s time to retire the term gentrification altogether. Fourteen years ago, Maureen Kennedy and Paul Leonard of the Brookings Institution wrote that gentrification “is a politically loaded concept that generally has not been useful in resolving growth and community change debates because its meaning is unclear.” That’s even truer today. Some U.S. cities do have serious affordability problems, but they’re not the problems critics of gentrification think they are. Worse, the media focus on gentrification has obscured problems that actually are serious: the increasing isolation of poor, minority neighborhoods and the startling spread of extreme poverty."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...le.single.html

[wolverine]

And soon there will be aristocratization. You have nice converted factories and homes done in the 90's and 00's being knocked down new shiny glass luxury towers. People think gentrification is some sort of capstone of neighborhood development and amenity but it's not. The wrecking ball swings alot harder as it becomes wealthier and goes from eliminating a certain income class to literally replacing the neighborhood's built environment.

[Wesley Mouch]

"It’s time to retire the term gentrification altogether. Fourteen years ago, Maureen Kennedy and Paul Leonard of the Brookings Institution wrote that gentrification “is a politically loaded concept that generally has not been useful in resolving growth and community change debates because its meaning is unclear.” That’s even truer today. Some U.S. cities do have serious affordability problems, but they’re not the problems critics of gentrification think they are. Worse, the media focus on gentrification has obscured problems that actually are serious: the increasing isolation of poor, minority neighborhoods and the startling spread of extreme poverty."

I don't see how the old term 'gentrification' is any better or worse than 'increasing isolation of the poor'. Both suggest an unseen hand causing the problem, rather than a broad failure by almost everyone involved from Wall Street, Washington, Lansing, Riyad, and Hastings Street.

[Parkguy]

I don't see how the old term 'gentrification' is any better or worse than 'increasing isolation of the poor'. Both suggest an unseen hand causing the problem, rather than a broad failure by almost everyone involved from Wall Street, Washington, Lansing, Riyad, and Hastings Street.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Those maps are amazing. There are certainly broad trends and larger forces at play. The Brightmoor tract is really interesting. There is a big jump in the number of degrees, although still far lower than the state average. I have to keep reminding myself that "median income" isn't the same as "average income." It is the point that is the divider between the higher and the lower half in that tract. Same for housing values. I live not too far away from this tract, and it is the main area where the massive housing demolitions are happening. When you remove the blighted and empty structures, the value of the remaining structures goes up, even if only incrementally. The population in that tract dropped by more than half, but the percentage of degree-holders went up almost by a factor of three, which is huge. Brightmoor is starting to get some interest from developers [[at least that is the rumor around here), and maybe these numbers are driving that. New amenities in that part of town, like the new elementary school, help, too, I suppose.

The numbers do reflect a change in the population-- more education, higher housing values, lower density [[almost rural in some blocks; it is really strange to see what looks like country with a street grid and houses at the front of the property-- usually in the country houses are set back for the most part).

[erikd]

I don't see how the old term 'gentrification' is any better or worse than 'increasing isolation of the poor'. Both suggest an unseen hand causing the problem, rather than a broad failure by almost everyone involved from Wall Street, Washington, Lansing, Riyad, and Hastings Street.[/FONT][/COLOR]

------------------
The point of the article is that "gentrification" is generally not a bad thing, especially when compared to the concentration of poverty, which is certainly a bad thing.
-------------------
As far as the suggestion of an "unseen hand" causing the problem, rather than a broad failure of the various political and economic players, what is the difference?

The "unseen hand", the "man", and the "system" are just euphemisms for the combination of political, economic, and social forces that create incentives for certain behaviors and investments, and disincentives for other behaviors and investments.

Washington + Lansing + Wall Street + Riyadh + numerous other political/economic/social players = The man/the unseen hand/the system, etc. It doesn't matter what you call it, we are all talking about the the same thing.

[Dan Wesson]

My impression and I am probably wrong, concerning 'gentrification' of Detroit neighborhoods.

It's a numbers manipulation.

If you take an area and quantify it then remove the factors that reduced it's score, it has to raise the remainder.

My take, just reading the responses to the OP not the link supplied, is 'gentrification' in the residential neighborhoods of the D is based on subtraction. Remove the losers,if you will, both population and real estate. What you have left are the winners.

yes/no?

A numbers game. No real gain per say. A net loss actually but the ratio of liabilities to assets improves.

As in...

Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.

The Woodward corridor south of the Boulevard is a different story.

[Wesley Mouch]

My impression and I am probably wrong, concerning 'gentrification' of Detroit neighborhoods.

It's a numbers manipulation.

If you take an area and quantify it then remove the factors that reduced it's score, it has to raise the remainder.

My take, just reading the responses to the OP not the link supplied, is 'gentrification' in the residential neighborhoods of the D is based on subtraction. Remove the losers,if you will, both population and real estate. What you have left are the winners.

yes/no?

A numbers game. No real gain per say. A net loss actually but the ratio of liabilities to assets improves.

As in...

Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.

The Woodward corridor south of the Boulevard is a different story.

After trying to read the stats, it became clear to me that the statistical model they were using isn't designed to handle collapsed economic areas. So these are mostly false positives.

Where can we see the success of regentrification? Well downtown, up Woodward, and the Cass Corridor/Corktown/Mexicantown a bit. But even in what we see as Detroit revitalizations its not the true regentrification so loathed by many. We are not seeing Woodbridge being repopulated by the gentry. We're just seeing significant improvement. I think there's a big difference.

And that leads me to the obvious question of whether regentrification is good or bad. And that depends on how you define it. If you define it as an abandonment of the most vulnerable citizens, then its bad. If you define it as a return of commerce and vitality to urban neighborhood, it it could be good.

We should all want success. And we should all want basic services for all people. They don't have to be in conflict.