DCentric

Well, if you insist on breaking down “gentrify” by ethnicity, I’d go with “honkify,” “BUPPYfy,” “salsafy,” and “stirfry.”

I would have to say that gentrification looks the same as it shares the same commonality that it excludes or mostly forces residents out who can no longer afford to live there. The terminology should stay the same, but the real issue is how it’s become a code-word for ‘good or safe place to live now’ in certain communities(largely white) and a pejorative word for those who have been kicked out or essentially displaced due to new economics. There really needs to be more effort in making sure that gentrification not only improves a neighborhood, but also retains it’s historic value and has ample space for affordable housing. Remember also, gentrification usually leads to issues for inner ring suburbs where those displaced usually find their new dwellings. So you’re never really solving a societal issue as much as sweeping under a rug(in this case in another area).

Gentrification *should* be a RESTORATION of a neighborhood NOT the EVACUATION of a community. 

Can’t we gentrify neighborhoods without “Disneyfication”?  Without turning them into the next contrived [white] urban hipster playground?   Without turning them into Logan Circle and U Street?

http://washingtoninformer.com/index.php/local/item/5769-h-street-ne-corridor-struggles-for-identity

“There really needs to be more effort in making sure that gentrification not only improves a neighborhood, but also retains it’s historic value and has ample space for affordable housing. ”
Yes, the comforting boot (or embrace) of government can sculpt our perfect society. We need more technocrats engineering utopia for us. 

But on a serious note, you can’t get the benefits of gentrification without the main factor…the leaving and coming of people. Public housing buildings don’t really generate crime, it’s some of the folks inside.

How about ni….nevermind.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. The best cure for all this is upward mobility among lower income people, but the left isn’t too fond of that as upwardly mobile people sometimes become conservative/libertarian once they get weaned off the sour teat of government.

How do you get “upward mobility among lower income people” when conservative economics perpetuate social inequality?  My point really is not about WHO is doing the gentrifying but, instead, who reaps the benefits.
Again: why can’t gentrification mean *restoring* neighborhoods to their former or historical prominence INSTEAD OF turning them into shopping malls and bar/nightclub strips?  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that people-of-color get what I’m talking about while some “others” do not.

Does Logan Circle or U Street even resemble it’s historical self?  No.  They’re both playgrounds for precious-white-urban-hipsters who want granite counters, American Apparel, and lattes.  

How long before Windows Cafe can’t afford rent in Bloomingdale?   

Monkeyrotica. I think you are wrong here. Go to the page Stuff White People Like for an example of things that middle class white people like that you can safely say black middle class people do not like to the same degree. E.g. expensive sandwiches, tanning, esoteric organic foods. I certainly do not speak for all middle class black people, but I do have two Ivy League degrees, and I my likes are totally different from the likes described on the page. Anecdotally, I would say my friends are similar, although I would imagine I am more adverse to “things white people like” than some of my other Ivy League friends. I also attended a HBCU where many of my friends are middle/upper middle class and they tend to not like those “things white people like” to same degree. Race matters, always.

I think one thing people don’t often think about with gentrification is how it comes in waves. Migratory populations in a region are all in some way interconnected. Right now the small-h ‘hipsters,’ really the artists and disenfranchised youth, as well as working class families, are pushed further and further from the center. But no one seems to make a strong distinction between these and the large-H Hipsters, yuppie singles & families, & upper-class immigrants [esp. europeans] who then follow in a wave of condos, normalization & greenwashing.

Many of the neighborhoods that are being gentrified today by whites were historic white communities before the blacks moved in and whites moved out.  Think Ledroit Park and Bloomingdale as two examples.  We need to preserve all of a community’s history — not just the black history that started in 1950 onward.

Restoring neighborhoods to their former prominence would require having an economic base

Race matters to a point, the point you can get over it.  If we all know deep down we are the same, then imagine how boring it would be to always circle back around to the subject of race.  Of course there are many sub-groups one can identify with, but at some times it feels like people are hiding behind race for fear of putting themselves out there in all thier solitariness. 

Typical.  The ignorance and self-absorption of White urban hipsters makes them parodies of themselves.

The only difference is Whites didn’t “move out” of neighborhoods like LeDroit Park and Bloomingdale.  THEY *FLED*.  White People purposely left *in droves* to ESCAPE The City, Blacks, and host of other issues.  White people had a choice in the matter.  They didn’t stay to make the neighborhoods better.

By contrast, those Black people who moved into such neighborhoods did so because, in most cases, they couldn’t afford to live elsewhere.  They didn’t really have so many choices.  So yeah, socio-economic class is a big factor here.

Now that The White People *choose* to come back to these neighborhoods it’s ok for them to gentrify and mall-ify without any respect for architectural, infrastructural, social, and historical provenance? 

Again, turning H Street into another Logan Circle is a gross disrespect to the community and to the city of Washington.  Does it occur to anyone that every new condo building, apartment tower, bar, nightclub, restaurant, coffee shop erected in these neighborhoods is the urban equivalent of Ryland Homes or NV Homes developments in the suburbs?  Acres and acres of monotonous structures and amenties. 

Hey, whatever White People want.

50k new manufacturing jobs makes this NYT article on WH’s manufacturing strategy a key read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/business/economy/a-lure-to-keep-jobs-made-in-america.html?_r=1&ref=annielowrey

Hipsters aren’t bourgeois children who want shiny new apartment towers with granite and stainless next to Metro? 

You’d be very surprised how much urban hipster *affect* is contrived; pure calculation.  A pose.  Yes, this is a generaliztion – most urban hipsters are precious, college-educated, white kids.  Who else could *afford* to keep young white kids just out of college and making very little money in neighborhoods like Logan, U Street, Bloomingale, Eckington, Petworth, and H Street…but their PARENTS?

But they won’t go to Anacostia.  That’s too far away from all the bars, nightclubs and shiny new apartment towers.  It’s just not “cool” yet…oh, and its too “dangerous”.

I would not compare gentrification in the U.S. with other countries.  Capitalism (which I’m not complaining about) makes the process here in the States very different.  The motive and priority is profit.

you seem to have a smart sense of what revitalization can be, and your concern for communities in beautiful. your need to stereotype and insult will result in people ignoring you. shame really. 

Really? 

Exhibit A: http://dcmetrocentric.com/2012/02/the-lost-9th-street/

What was 9th Street, NW is now a hole in the ground for CityCenterDC luxury condos and office space.  I’m not complaining; it will look great. 

But what did we lose by not caring about the preservation of what was there first and why?  We lost part of DC’s history because White People fled the cities for the suburbs and just didn’t care.

And what would you say uppwardly mobile blacks who fled to PG County from DC were doing? My word is fleeing. Not race-based.

i think there is a difference when white people gentrify non-white neighborhoods. whatever the thoughts are on us all being equal, white people still are in control, have more money, have more power and and far less marginalized in this country. i have heard white people say, “oh look what black people did to dc”. things like that are simply ignorant and continues marginalization and makes people like marknelson220 more rapid and reactionary. and there are lots of marknelsons out there. to make arguments that le droit park used to be white is unhelpful. yes it was white, full of detestable bigots that built a fence to keep non whites out. also, it was black people that made these places historic. black history is what these neighborhoods are about. why? because there are fewer of them and the ones we discus, le droit, shaw, bloomingdale are very important in black history. they are insignificant in white history.  

this is not to say we should live in that past. to complain that white folks are moving back to the city is also unhelpful. white folk, like black folk do not act as one. these are not the same people moving back, and even if it was, so what? in america we have that freedom. and time moves forward. the city will continue to get more populated and more condos will be built. other areas will gentrify. complain all you want, but white populations are increasing in this city.  the marknelsons of this city would be wise to get to know their white neighbors without stereotyping them all. and white folks would be wise to shut up and listen to their black neighbors and do their best to understand how different the black experience in this country is from the white experience.  we can get along. but we need to listen more and be less defensive.

i would recommend talking with your older african american neighbors if you think race doesn’t matter. in dc, race still matters. should it? maybe not. but it does. one only has to read the comments here, and on neighborhood blogs, or go to anc meetings to see that people still posture on race. 

“ why can’t gentrification mean *restoring* neighborhoods to their former or historical prominence INSTEAD OF turning them into shopping malls and bar/nightclub strips?”

amen. people seem to not understand that restoration is not the same thing as gentrification.

Precisely. Whites fled the city for the suburbs in large numbers in the 60s. Because of housing covenants blacks didn’t have that option. This changed with the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. As soon as it was an option, middle-class blacks abandoned the city as quickly and as comprehensively as whites.

I’ve been in Shaw for about 5 years now and the changes I’ve seen here suggest race does not really matter that much (I’m white FWIW).  I’d definitely say the majority of the people moving into Shaw were white in the earlier years but what’s interesting to me is how diverse the gentrification has become. 

I’ve seen a dramatic change in the gentrification; its now full of younger blacks, many asians, interracial couples, LGBT people (although rarely do I see latinos).  Is it perfect?  No.  Should there more respect paid to the cultural significance this neighborhood played in the black community?  Surely.  But take a look at Chinatown.  I think Shaw has tried much harder to maintain some black culture than Chinatown has for the asian community, which has all but been removed from there by commercial offices.

Development caters to money it seems, not races.

I’m thrilled with the number of Latinos moving into the H street corridor.  Call them whatever you like- I just like the diversity!  

Gentrification accounts for both race and class and to argue otherwise is insincere.  This is especially true in DC as there are no sizable white (ethnic) working class enclaves in the city.  Black neighborhoods in cities have always been income diverse.  The over inflation of markets has everything to do with the premiums placed on white bodies.  Has there been a case where lower income class residents of color have been displaced by middle and upper class people of color SOLELY?

On the other hand, if they *did* go to Anacostia or even tried to live there

Are you trying to equate the statistically small number of Blacks who moved to PG County relative to the massive amounts of Whites who fled the city?  Who’s been living in these urban neighborhoods for the past 60 years?

Are you also trying to argue Whites and Blacks left cities for the same reasons?  Pretending bigotry had nothing to do with Whites fleeing cities is disingenous.

Really?  Who’s been living in downtown DC for the last 60 years?

Agreed.  I just get impatient with ignorance (and continually try to interrogate my own). I guess in these forums it is easier to argue via coneptual shorthand, and that means invoking quick descriptions that are not attractive.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. 

Excellent comments, your patience is exemplary.  Just can’t help recognizing history: The White Man stole this country from Native Americans, defined Blacks as property, and continues to *appropriate* and exploit Other People’s communities.

Will H Street be the next theme park for White Urban Hipsters? 

How long before the mall-ification of Brookland?  Are the Shops at Dakota Crossing just the beginning?

How long before the Disney-fication of Anacostia? 

Ja:  This (black) woman thoroughly enjoys expensive sandwiches and esoteric organic foods (and MFA programs and a host of other things that are supposed to be stuff that only white people like).  My (black) husband and sister also enjoy these things. So do many of my (black, white, brown) friends.

My point is that whether race matters or not, race is too often conflated with culture.

Ja:  This (black) woman thoroughly enjoys expensive sandwiches and esoteric organic foods (and MFA programs and a host of other things that are supposed to be stuff that only white people like).  My (black) husband and sister also enjoy these things. So do many of my (black, white, brown) friends.

My point is that whether race matters or not, race is too often conflated with culture.

 The only “young white urban hipsters” I know that are (semi)supported by their parents are grad students or college students. The students that flock to the H St. night clubs I find as irritating as you do, but they’re not to be seen there in daylight hours.  I certainly never see them when I’m browsing the racks at Salvation Army.

I am young, white, college-educated, and financially self-sufficient, as are all of my friends who aren’t students (most of them). I bought a home in Trinidad to put down roots, and because it was a good commute to my job. I considered Anacostia but decided I just didn’t know enough about the neighborhood. What’s wrong with wanting to live near restaurants and bars I know and like? As for “dangerous”, statistically speaking, my former home in Columbia Heights was surrounded by three times the violent and property crime as my new abode. I feel safe in Trinidad in large part because I know our neighbors by name. If I didn’t live here, I don’t know if I would feel as safe walking down Bladensburg Road, but I’m a part of the neighborhood now, and I don’t plan to leave.

“Does Logan Circle or U Street even resemble it’s historical self?”

Well, commercial 14th Street in Logan Circle used to be predominantly auto showrooms. I don’t see how returning the street to *that* state really benefits the city or nearby residents. And as for U Street, well, remember that U Street was the dining and nightlife epicenter of the A-A population in DC through the 1950s. The biggest difference in U Street today is that it’s catering to a mixed-race crowd as opposed to a primarily A-A one (although whites did attend performances in places like the Howard and Lincoln). But a stretch of restaurants, bars and nightclubs isn’t a foreign concept for U Street; it’s basically what the street was historically known for. The same can be said of H Street NE.

But all of this really begs the question: when you question why a neighborhood can’t simply be restored to its historical prominence, whose prominence are you referring to? All neighborhoods change and evolve over time. Anacostia was once a predominantly white upper-middle class neighborhood, as was LeDroit Park. Georgetown once had a significantly higher A-A population than it does today. And so on. So, who “owns” those neighborhood’s histories? Which one is the “right” one? When U Street bars and clubs began reopening, should they have gone out of their way to cater only to an A-A clientele?

To me, the question is why is it so hard for DC to cultivate neighborhoods that provide some basic amenities–a supermarket, a dry cleaners, a hardware store, a coffee shop, a few restaurants/bars, a park, etc.–yet retain middle class affordability? It seems that, particularly over the last decade or so, the moment a neighborhood begins to “revitalize,” its real estate goes through the roof. In my mind, the problem facing DC isn’t so much the fact that U Street has been transformed once again into a nightlife destination, it’s that so few stable, affordable neighborhoods with reasonable commercial amenities exist within the city. Most people don’t need a dozen high-end small-plate fusion restaurants at their doorstep, but being within walking distance to some ofthe businesses I mentioned above in a safe, affordable, stable neighborhood would be attractive to many people.

“Does Logan Circle or U Street even resemble it’s historical self?”

Well, commercial 14th Street in Logan Circle used to be predominantly auto showrooms. I don’t see how returning the street to *that* state really benefits the city or nearby residents. And as for U Street, well, remember that U Street was the dining and nightlife epicenter of the A-A population in DC through the 1950s. The biggest difference in U Street today is that it’s catering to a mixed-race crowd as opposed to a primarily A-A one (although whites did attend performances in places like the Howard and Lincoln). But a stretch of restaurants, bars and nightclubs isn’t a foreign concept for U Street; it’s basically what the street was historically known for. The same can be said of H Street NE.

But all of this really begs the question: when you question why a neighborhood can’t simply be restored to its historical prominence, whose prominence are you referring to? All neighborhoods change and evolve over time. Anacostia was once a predominantly white upper-middle class neighborhood, as was LeDroit Park. Georgetown once had a significantly higher A-A population than it does today. And so on. So, who “owns” those neighborhood’s histories? Which one is the “right” one? When U Street bars and clubs began reopening, should they have gone out of their way to cater only to an A-A clientele?

To me, the question is why is it so hard for DC to cultivate neighborhoods that provide some basic amenities–a supermarket, a dry cleaners, a hardware store, a coffee shop, a few restaurants/bars, a park, etc.–yet retain middle class affordability? It seems that, particularly over the last decade or so, the moment a neighborhood begins to “revitalize,” its real estate goes through the roof. In my mind, the problem facing DC isn’t so much the fact that U Street has been transformed once again into a nightlife destination, it’s that so few stable, affordable neighborhoods with reasonable commercial amenities exist within the city. Most people don’t need a dozen high-end small-plate fusion restaurants at their doorstep, but being within walking distance to some ofthe businesses I mentioned above in a safe, affordable, stable neighborhood would be attractive to many people.

“We lost part of DC’s history because White People fled the cities for the suburbs and just didn’t care.”

Actually, DC lost pretty much everyone who could afford to leave the city–there was quite a bit of black flight from DC’s central neighborhoods as well. Many went farther north up 16th Street to Crestwood and the Gold Coast, or to PG County.

I do agree that it is heartbreaking to look at what was lost by the city in the name of “progress” over the last half century or so. The old convention center site is one such place; looking at picture of SW DC before the 1950s renewal kicked in can be upsetting as well. Actually, most of downtown DC was full of buildings and businesses that overflowed with character, before they were knocked down and replaced with the sterile office blocks we have today.

the h street hipster boat has done sailed. you been there on a friday or saturday night lately?  it’s a bit crazy. 

brookland? it’s coming now.  new stuff near the metro. 

i think the shops at dakota crossing are not related to the old Dakota Crossing apartment building, but a new thing in fort lincoln. right? not really certain. but truth is, fort lincoln was built for yuppies back in the day. 

disney land anacostia=2025.

 no, i hear you. all in all it’s a hard conversation.

LOL, so true.  H Street has been “over” for some time.  Shaw is done.  Bloomingdale was over years ago.  I can’t walk into Big Bear Cafe without cringing, is a total a parody of itself.  SO irritating. 

Interesting how Truxton Circle and Bates has not had the same transformation.  Why?  Projects, high school.  The juxtapostion of smug hipsters sitting in Big Bear with Macbooks staring at projects across Florida Avenue is rich and ironic.  No pun intended.

Try following some of the Bloomingdale bloggers on Twitter.  It’s hilarious.  Transparent hipster yuppies complaining about The Blacks, parking, pissing in alleys, and crime in very delicate language so as not to offend.  I feel like screaming at all of them, “you live in the city!!!  it’s not Bethesda Row!!!  city life is precisely that!!!  aren’t you satisified enough knowing you can sell your home in 5 years for a massive profit and go back to AU Park so your kids are safe”?!!!

Yes, I think the shops at Dakota Crossing are the new thing that just broke ground in Fort Lincoln – NY Av @ South Dakota?

I think the Anacostia will happen much sooner.  2017?

It is so hard to have a dialogue with people who are:

1) completely ignorant of the issue’s parameters
2) generalize from personal experience
3) simply expect they are correct

The expectation of some that their *PERSONAL* opinions are relevant, and that their subjective experience is accurate, is supremely arrogant.  The reflexivity of hegemonic privilege.

Discussing gentrification with white hipsters, developers, interlopers, etc. is like debating Human Evolution with a Jehovah’s Witness.  A conversation happening on two entirely different levels.

I’m confused by your response-where exactly did you draw from my statement some sort of backing of government? I guess the the affordable housing comment?
I’m not saying that affordable housing is the only answer, I’m just saying in some sort of egalitarian way that some folks who live in an area and work hard should be allowed to stay meeting certain requirements. Affordable housing is not only government subsidized housing, it can just be housing that has a median income requirement.

And as for your metaphorical ‘guns don’t kill people’ argument about public housing,  I highly doubt someone would argue that public housing in and of itself that brings crime, obviously crime is a byproduct of poverty.

So much wrong, where do I begin?
Bates, or BACA- Bates Area Civic Assoc. covers the northern half of Truxton Circle, Hanover the southern end.
The Co-op isn’t “the projects.” It is very disrespectful of the people who own a bit of the complex and live there. It is private property and not owned by the city.

Yes, the high school, known as Dunbar, takes up a lot of space, as does the other school buildings and the co-op, but our slow change is due to the large number of single homes and very few large apartment buildings to turn condo or whatever.
For BACA the meetings are diverse, and the angry black women of a certain age who have owned their homes and “put a lot of money into them” are the ones screaming that if any of the schools are to be developed they should be market rate housing.
Surprise, surprise black women care about property values.

The answer to the question is right here:

http://selectingstones.com/2012/02/07/selecting-stones-presents-karl-marx-on-so-called-gentrification/

http://selectingstones.com/2012/02/07/selecting-stones-presents-karl-marx-on-so-called-gentrification/

i agree 100%.

I’m white, and a student in DC, and i’m currently writing a paper that is anti gentrification. Now my family and I have always been upper-lower class, so I feel just as angry about gentrification as many low income residents do. Notice that I did not say races or ethnicities but classes. I feel that most of these comments are just rachially charged comments hidden under “rhetoric and higher language”. I feel that the problem is’nt race but economic. Poor whites get pushed out of neighborhoods just as much as any other race, it’s just that it’s not as often in DC. I am one of only seven white students at my school that’s mostly African American and Hispanic. 

My mom whose white has gotten yelled at by a couple black woman who thought she was wealthy, and then got in a fight with a wealthy white family who were being complete snobs. To give you a little background on my mom’s side, her family going back five or so generations were working class paper mill workers even nowadays. None of them went to college, generally working into their sixties or even seventies. I feel that the unfortunate thing about DC, is that the white population are among the wealthiest in the country, which are generally the worst example of society ever. Outside of DC, there are millions of poor whites. 

All i’m saying is that, coming up with a unique name for gentrification that’s “non-white” is kind’ve racist. What are we, some sort of monster, that needs some unique classification? Race was and is just a social consturct, designed to keep one group of people up, and one people down. In much the same way Hitler tried to distinguis Jews, Africans, Gypsies, and every other group he scapgoated, from the “master race”. Gentrification is gentrification. it can be really bad or really good, but that is not defined by race but by the people doing the gentrifying. People are people, human beings, not black or hispanic or white! 

(Sorry I don’t mean to sound angry or upset, if I did, I just get heated up)

“It is so hard to have a dialogue with people who are:
1) completely ignorant of the issue’s parameters2) generalize from personal experience
3) simply expect they are correct”

Pretty classic case of projection going on here.  Just sayin’.

Not every black resident who had the wherewithal to do so left the second the Fair Housing Act was passed. Just as not every single white resident left the city in 1954.  But look at the population numbers. Been falling precipitously from 1970 until 2000.  Been rising sharply in PG County over the same period. That’s the sound of the black middle-class leaving the city.