DoomGoober t1_j4n61t4 wrote
Reply to comment by spitefulcum in New apartment buildings in low-income areas lead to lower rents in nearby housing units. This runs contrary to popular claims that new market-rate housing causes an uptick in rents and leads to the displacement of low-income people. by smurfyjenkins
There is a belief that adding new market rate rental units causes an area to "gentrify", essentially more restaurants and services move into the area, making an area more desirable, and driving up rents for everyone who lives nearby.
In fact, that belief is explicitly called out (and disproven) in the linked paper:
>If buildings improve nearby amenities, the effect is not large enough to increase rents.
So, this paper is reactionary to a subset of housing advocates who claim that market rate housing does not help lower/mid income folks and insist the only lower/mid income housing can help lower rents and oppose market rate housing.
fighterpilottim t1_j4o1trx wrote
Thank you for an actual substantive comment. And some reasoning to go with it. :-)
va_str t1_j4toj58 wrote
The argument around gentrification is usually about replacing affordable housing, while displacing the current low-income tenants, not building extra housing.
DoomGoober t1_j4tvi3a wrote
Here is a blurb from Shelter Force:
>Even worse, however, new construction actually fuels displacement in the short term, even when no already existing housing is knocked down. Why? Numerous studies show that market-rate housing development has price ripple effects on surrounding neighborhoods, driving up rents and increasing the burden on lower-income households. Many residents in communities transformed by gentrification can already attest to the connection between for-profit development, rising living costs, and the mass exodus of lower-income residents.
Note they explicitly call new market rate construction "gentrification" even with the disclaimer "no already existing housing is knocked down."
I don't know who or what Shelter Force is, but clearly this group (which I found with a simple Google search in like 2 seconds) does not only consider replacing low income housing as the only form of gentrification.
It considers simply adding market rate housing as a form of gentrification that causes rents to rise. (Which is disproven by the linked post, if it is to be believed.)
Edit: my Google search was: "adding market rate housing gentrification". And Shelter Force is:
>Shelterforce is the only independent, non-academic publication covering the worlds of community development, affordable housing, and neighborhood stabilization.
Uh... Not exactly a ringing endorsement for their bona fides but they have been around since 1975.
https://shelterforce.org/about/
I have heard many housing advocates repeat the same idea that even adding market rate housing drives up prices for everyone. I just provided one specific example to prove I am not making it up.
va_str t1_j4u8fzl wrote
Fair enough, I guess I can mostly only speak from my own experience. I come from the perspective where community members are forced out of their homes by rent-increases specifically to clear the properties for re-development, and the union steps in. That's exclusively where we use the term and oppose gentrification. I don't recall any case where we would have opposed entirely new properties being built.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments