Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
"NIMBYism" is a large category. I like to look at it more granularly.
In this case we're talking about an anti-gentrification agenda. I would contrast this to agendas against other developments such as new schools or fracing sites. There are common traits but gentrification is a heavily loaded topic that has it's own specific type of NIMBYism.
Unfortunately, I think we're in store for a lot more of it. American politics is very polarized and I think views on gentrification are becoming a litmus test for one side of the political spectrum. In the same way that american conservatism has locked onto climate change denial in a seemingly unreasonable way, it seems that american liberalism has locked onto changing neighborhood wealth in as similarly prejudged way.
Perhaps that's venturing too far down a political rabbit hole though. My overall point is that few people hear the word gentrification and continue listening with an open mind. Instead there is a knee jerk reaction one way or the other. Basically, what political camp do you align with.
Granted, that's a simplification but it does seem overly linked to party affiliation now.
|
It's more important how people act than what they say.
I've noticed a lot of right wingers have become basically pro-gentrification - either because they see it as a way to whitewash the city and "clean it up" or because they just want to take the opposite position as "liberals." But these type of people almost never live in the city, so it doesn't matter.
On the flip side, white liberals might whinge about gentrification being a real problem, but it's not like this has slowed down gentrification in any way.
Really one of the biggest issues is that the anti-gentrification crowd have embraced NIMBYism - the idea that we can stop neighborhoods from gentrifying by not building big market-rate apartment buildings in low-income neighborhoods. This is wrongheaded, because it's fundamentally a supply issue, and not building enough new construction buildings for yuppies makes them more likely to displace low income renters.
The ideal solution - which would slow down gentrification
and help alleviate housing shortages - would be to engage in massive upzoning in the most desirable neighborhoods. For example, if big portions of Shadyside and Squirrel Hill were upzoned 25 years ago you would see a lot less activity in East Liberty today. But one iron law in U.S. zoning is entitled rich folks will have their own blocks protected from being fucked with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronPGH
Yeah, I realize it's a bit of a pipe dream, but it'd be great to see Pittsburgh get ahead of the curve in some way. If not rent control, there are a lot of other ways to assist and accomplish similar things. Tax breaks? Grants for upgrading storefronts or improving aging buildings for legacy businesses?
|
It will be interesting to see how the retail turns out in Walnut Capital's new building in Oakland. OPDC is going to be the landlord and explicitly rent out small subsections to local businesses. It might point to an interesting way forward to allow local non-chain businesses to survive in increasingly built up areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronPGH
Because it's unique. It's an amazing mix of places like Penn Mac (1902) next to some of the best new restaurants in the city – coexisting. You can find almost anything from around the world that you're looking for in the markets down there. I understand it's always been an evolving place, but we've also never seen such a massive injection of capital into the neighborhood. It's a bit of uncharted territory for Pittsburgh. There are going to be major shifts this time that the Strip has not dealt with in the past.
|
I understand, and I don't disagree that it's something unique. I just don't think it's really possible to freeze what a neighborhood is in time. Through historic preservation you can to some degree freez
e the built structure of a place, but the residents, customers, and uses will change over time.
I also think that fundamentally businesses like Penn Mac - even though they own their buildings - will eventually get pushed out. The "Old Strip" was built on the model of suburbanites driving in for the weekend, parking all day, and wandering around (kinda like tailgaters at Steelers games). Parking is getting more scarce as the areas around the most built up commercial part of Penn are redeveloped, and it will get worse as time goes on. Additional urban congestion is starting to dissuade some of them from coming in as well.
Of course the Strip has thousands of new residents and workers, but they're going to be looking for the more typical mixture of bars, restaurants, coffeeshops, and basic staples sort of things you get in most thriving urban business districts - not necessarily to shop for spices, popcorn, or party supplies.
Basically, I feel like what the "Old Strip" was is fundamentally not well aligned with a dense mixed-use neighborhood, since it requires tons of outsiders to drive there in order for the businesses to support themselves. We could perhaps ameliorate part of this with better transit - particularly if there was some way to add a rapid transit node which allowed downtown tourists/visitors/workers to hop back and forth between the Strip and Downtown more quickly. But barring that, it's just going to be another Walnut Street or something eventually.
Prev
Linear Mode
