I can only speak about the Midtown Detroit where I lived from 2002 to 2008. It was a group of students, artists, musicians and old-timer bohemians that made that area great and interesting. The only common denominator was that nobody had much money.
Once the suburban kids from more wealthy suburban families started to move in it was all but over. I visited recently and the rough edges and patina and unpredictability has been worn away by the safe suburban values and esthetics of the new residents.
I know it gets tiresome to hear, "You don't know what it was like, man." in regards to gentrification. But I can get over-stylized brew pubs, twee boutiques, foodie small plates and corporate sponsored street fairs anywhere. Those things where not there when it was deemed "Cool". My rent was $400 that I split, the same (rather shitty) apartment now goes for $1600. When the cost of living goes up like that, you've shut our a lot of interesting people looking for a chance to do something interesting.
People with money are chasing "Cool" and it's the one thing you cannot truly buy.
I was 'cool' for a couple of years or so in Seattle in the late 80s and early 90s. Lived in the last frame house in Belltown, made art and had lots of artist friends, saw Nirvana and four other bands for $5 at Squid Row, have pictures of my out of town friends at Jimi Hendrix' original grave, ate cheap soup for lunch lots of days at Pike Place Market, and generally was so much cooler than the people I left behind in the Midwest that it was impossible to quantify.
I don't miss those days. In fact, it seems like a gigantic waste of time 30 years later. Glad I got out when I did.
IIRC, it was between Broad and Cedar off of First, back on the lot toward Post Alley, across from the Labor Temple. Any pics I have are buried somewhere in storage, unfortunately.
Edit: It might've been between Broad and Eagle. It's been almost 30 years and the neighborhood has completely changed.
It was directly uphill from the Union 76 Superfund site, which might be the sculpture park now. I remember watching the trucks swoop in one day as they put up fences around the site. Our property was managed by a somewhat crazy SEIU member who was a direct descendant of a surviving male member of the Donner Party.
Thanks for the info and the great description ("...Donner party").
My partner at that time quite possibly was an over-seerer of the activities You described, she did superfund environmental impact stuff and I vaguely recall something about it.
There was a small house I really admired on Post & Lenora, it was there until the early 2000's (I lived <50 meters away).
Ah yes, I was very likely wrong when I said it was the last one. It was certainly the last one I saw regularly. I moved to Wallingford after that, and then later to Squire Park, before I left the area entirely.
You could call it high opportunity cost, but only in the sense of life goals as viewed from later in life, not the usual financial sense. I recognize clearly now that at the time I was just drifting through life without any real sense of purpose. Youth is wasted on the young, as they say.
> Once the suburban kids from more wealthy suburban families started to move in it was all but over
While I agree that bohemians are a worthy part of society, rent pricing is complicated, and that so-called wealthy suburbanites coincide with a safety exchange: greater property crime and visible homelessness for a reduction in violent crime, an exchange with complex human costs.
I'm someone who chose the predictable suburban values, and I still say amen to your analysis (especially the final sentence). It's like people have no sense of what real character (in a person or place) is actually comprised of. And let's be honest, even the food and beer in these places are frequently mediocre.
> My rent was $400 that I split, the same (rather shitty) apartment now goes for $1600
or, if the owner/occupant elects to put the unit on Airbnb, $3,000-$4,000+ per month[1] (not directly related to the article, but short-term [nomad] housing is largely a thing of the past).
The most annoying thing in my rapidly gentrifying neighborhood is getting yelled at for biking on the sidewalk. If there is no bike lane, and there are not commercial properties on the street, it is legal to bike on the sidewalk. Gentrifiers think they are still in NYC and yell that it's illegal to be on the sidewalk as if I'm cruising around Manhattan. They are so smug, entitled, and wrong.
Being artists, old, hipster, gay/lesbian, etc shouldn't give anyone special rights to claim that they need to be specially immunized from the pressures of the world.
It's just a fact that people who make something, invent, come up with a good idea, make a place better, eventually are going to be disappointed by the masses who take up their ideas/places and lack the same reverence for what they created by replacing it with money.
Many of the inventors of, say radio/cellphones, medicines, technologies, or chefs, painters, architects, fashion designers, would probably be rolling in their graves with what the mass market has done with their original lofty ideas. It happens to everyone, and you move on. If you're lucky you take advantage of some of the value of what you created.
It's no different for people who own a house, live in a community that became hot. They created something (and, by the way, many did not, they just lived there), and now what they created is appealing enough that more people want to live where they live.
For those that owned property, they get plenty out of the deal. For those that don't and rented, well, gentrification is not the first time that someone who rents loses out compared to being a property holder. That's a wholly separate issue.
Feel free to suggest how to change human nature and the way people and the masses behave.
The machinery being critiqued is not the same thing as an individual asking for special treatments.
If most instances of a place growing desirable because human(vs financial) investment results in said place being overrun by an influx of wealth disparity that eventually restructures the space into a corporate-safe shell of its former self then there will be a chilling effect that stops the former from happening. You can show up to a place and not immediately outbid all your neighbors for the most desirable spots. Having wealth is not the same as exercising wealth.
Nor is gentrification a single instance, its the accepted mechanism that those with more wealth employee to claim the non-tangible identities created by those with less. It's the emergent result of this socialized desire for something "cool and authentic"(whatever that nonsense means) buckled up with tools afforded by a normalization of conspicuous consumption.
We are eroding the individual identities of American cities, the people who are being displaced do lose something more than the opportunity to live in a geographic location, and pretending it's inevitable/"just how things are" will eventually result in a nationwide reduction in non-financial investing in cities. It stinks for everyone, even those doing the gentrifying. Where will one move too when all the cool places are gone?
I know I sound like Jimmy Carter telling everyone to wear a cardigan and turn the heater down, but we all just need to learn to let things be. Even if they are exciting, especially if they are exciting.
You speak as if the one and only important metric of a place is how many street murals and tattoo parlors there are. And that coolness of a place should be enough justification to prevent anyone else from enjoying its benefits. Loss of coolness == bad, huh?
What about gentrification as a force for reducing crime, raising property values in a place (yes, actual uncouth $ value for people who invested, even unwittingly, and now receive value beyond just being able to get a good burrito), and housing people who previously were searching and couldn't afford to live elsewhere?
Just because gentrification comes with some corporate associations doesn't mean it isn't supporting and benefiting millions of actual people. People who, yes, probably aren't fluent in a 2nd language, can't make a good empanada themselves, and are more boring than the people they replace. But who bring stability, more prosperity and resources, and safety margin of not falling back into urban decay?
Who are you to say that their use of a community is less worthy than the former occupants? Who gets to decide? Who gets to decide, day to day, and house by house, when someone living there dies or moves, who is "worthy" to move in to replace them? Or are you also suggesting that no one ever be allowed to move in there unless they pass some sort of coolness test?
And, by the way, do you mourn the one-before occupants who were displaced by the current creatives / "desireables" so concerned with gentrification now?
Gentrification seems to be a form of domestic tourism. It at least grows from the same vine as the travelers lust for authentic experience of a culture. A few tourists here and there do little harm but mobs of them can completely skew the local economy towards servicing their needs.
>> "Being artists, old, hipster, gay/lesbian, etc shouldn't give anyone special rights to claim that they need to be specially immunized from the pressures of the world."
Really? pressures of the world? Those peeps you mention know a whole lot about the world--prolly any one knows more than the two of us combined. Pressures from the free market and capitalism is more like it.
I rewatched the scifi movie IRobot last week. You know the one where Will Smith's character hates robots. Robots are everywhere doing great things for people--helping the elderly, doing crappy jobs--but his prejudice blinds him from all the good. He's obviously obsessed and paranoid. No way, the three laws make it impossible for anything bad to happen. What could go wrong?
I feel like the article was playing this point up so much that it bordered on unfair to the new owner, they’re being painted as hypocrites, but they did buy the building and they do need space to work, and according to the article they tried. It’s a no-win situation, but the people being moved just had their expectations set too high. Some groups that face this situation form co-ops and buy the place themselves.
I think it’s a lesson for everyone. The world doesn’t work on idealism. From time to time you have to deal with reality. This is one of those times. Perhaps they all learn some perspective from this.
I grew up in Cleveland and since moving out every city I've lived in has had an issue with gentrification (Boston, NYC, SF, Portland).
While I empathize with the individuals affected, part of me can't help thinking of it as a good problem on the city level. Growing up there were places where the copper piping was more valuable than the houses. Even now there's plenty of properties to buy sub $20k, close to mass transit, farmer's markets, and places like Case Western University.
Maybe some of the affected in Detroit will move down to Cleveland and one day I too will have the luxury of complaining about gentrification.
> “It sucks that our vision has to come at the cost of artists who have used and loved that space,” Lee said. “There’s no way around it. It absolutely sucks.”
No way around it? Was this the only building in Detroit?
It was the only one they could get. They kept getting outbid by buyers with more cash.
Which doesn't excuse it. They apparently got the building in part because they were expected to let the artists stay.
It sounds almost like a bait and switch. They probably were not consciously and intentionally trying to scam anyone, but they took the deal and then changed their mind after the fact about how they would handle everything.
Also:
But Allied Media’s staff grew by 40 percent, another tenant needed more space and the City of Detroit wouldn’t allow the building to claim partial tax-exempt status as a nonprofit if it housed for-profit artists, Lee said.
I wonder how viable it would be to set up a one-person non-profit corporation that pays its owner-operator a reasonable wage off the proceeds of sold art.
Probably impossible given that non-profits require a board.
But I do wonder what other creative solutions might have been possible and either weren't explored or weren't pursued agressively enough to succeed die to lack of resources yadda.
it would be bait-and-switch if the new owners actually made such a promise. but from the article it sounds more like the occupants had a 'blind' hope. the new owner is not in the real-estate business buying buildings to make money of rent, but was looking for a space for themselves.
it seems to me like that wasn't communicated well, but also the old owners/occupants seemingly never thought to ask.
I think I already adequately covered the fact that they weren't intending to scam anyone.
But I'm a social creature and, among other things, I have had a college class in Negotiation and Conflict Management. People very often make deals for reasons not explicitly spelled out in the contract and not enforceable under the law.
The original owners considered this to be a "passion project." They could have sold it for more money to someone else and didn't. That's part of why this non-profit got the building.
It's almost certainly not enforceable in a court of law, but it sounds very much like there was an unstated expectation that the artists would get to stay and that was part of why they got the building at all.
I also quoted the part about how tax codes are putting pressure on them that they didn't anticipate. Perhaps they could have found some other solution to the problem or perhaps not. I have no idea what options were reasonable viable alternatives, if any.
But based on what I read in this article, I strongly suspect they wouldn't have gotten the building at all had there not be an implicit expectation that they would let the artists stay.
Also, the representative of the non-profit in question may not be doing a very good job of making it clear why they had no real choice. Running a thing and being a good PR person aren't outright mutually exclusive skills, but they frequently are different roles in the same organization.
The murals and commissioned graffiti around the city are very, very cool. The Dequindre cut alone is an outdoor art museum.
With that said, though, all the cool street art in the world isn't going to bring this city back. Investment and land development will though and that means higher rents. I hate to see what is going on in Eastern Market for instance.
What outsiders and visitors may not realize is how geographically big Detroit is. Boston, Manhattan, and San Francisco would all inside the city limits of Detroit, for instance. Detroit is safe in pockets. Downtown, midtown, cork-town, belle isle, Eastern Market, Hamtramck and a few blocks on the east side (and others) are all ok to go visit for the suburbanites. But you don't cross from one to the other without your car.
I have heard it said that Detroit isn't a city that was forgotten, Detroit is a city that just doesn't give a damn. Go 1 block outside of any of those pockets and you'll see what I mean.
My dream is those pockets touch, and we get a subway or some real mass transit and we'll feel like a whole city.
Here's what it's like to enjoy the city as a suburbanite. You get in your car, drive straight to your destination (probably downtown) go to your event, maybe hit a nearby bar or restaurant, then get back to your car before it's too late and drive out of Detroit back to the safe neighborhood you live in outside of the city limits.
It sucks. It has sucked for a long time and it's just now getting better. You can see it happening, downtown and midtown are basically contiguous now. We have 3 new sports stadiums and downtown is actually fun now.
I know it sucks that rent is going up, but that is a small side effect in my opinion. Riots in the 60s, systemic, chronic, oppressive corruption (including an ex mayor who is still in federal jail), the city declared bankruptcy a short 6 years ago and it wasn't that long ago you could literally golf the length of Detroit.
> Charitable property owners will eventually be out-competed by ruthless ones.
While true, the primary virtue of being an owner is that you’re free to do whatever you want with your property, even if there is a different, more profitable, use. These evictions are entirely the property owners’ choice, and have not been forced by competition.
What we have here is a demonstration that they are capitalists, and not philanthropists. I don’t think that comes as much of a surprise to anyone.
That's the primary reason I'm opposed to real-estate taxes (at least for small to reasonably large lots) - they force you on a hamster wheel just to keep what you have. If they're pegged to property values (not just area) they act as eminent domain - you either use your property in some market-driven way, or be forced to sell it as keeping it becomes unaffordable.
No room for sentiment or tradition - develop or die.
Counterpoint: higher property taxes force property valuations to be based closer to the “current use” value (ex, what is the value of this house based on its use as a place where someone lives), lower property taxes allow property valuations to be based on the “speculative” price (how much will this land be worth in 40 years, regardless of how I use it now). In general, jurisdictions with low property taxes have a combination of high property values and more rundown buildings/land banking/speculative investment (where speculative investment means owning an empty lot or vacant lot in a highly productive urban area for 40 years) as the carrying costs are lower (houses are valued more on the “what will this be worth in 40 years” and less on “what is it worth for me to use this house as a house right now”)
That's part of the reason for that "at least for small to reasonably large lots" exception I made.
Suppose there is a tax, but it's progressive (by square-foot), so you pay ~0 for your first house, a bit more for your second, and so on up to some maximum, same as income tax. That should make speculating on the future price more costly, and so reduce speculation - a bank/investor would probably be paying the maximum tax.
But, if they're not tied to property values, you get what's happening in California: Older people, simply by virtue of them being here first, end up being able to enjoy million-dollar neighborhoods while paying $hundreds in taxes. While younger people pay 10X more in taxes to live in 0.25X the neighborhood.
It doesn't make sense to me how people who oppose gentrification pushing poor residents out of areas would be fine with higher property taxes pushing old people out of areas. Maybe it's ageism. Both seem bad to me. It's not even like California's budget is suffering - they have a huge surplus.
I think it's because the connection to one's home has been devalued. That there is no legitimacy in wanting to live where one grew up. That it's somehow entitled to expect to stay without paying for it - 'it' being taxes, since the house was already paid for.
As I understand, the tax difference in California is because the tax is based on the property value at the time of purchase. If it were instead based on just e.g. area and zoning, everyone would be paying the same tax rate (barring zoning shenanigans...)
properties are so cheap in Detroit, you can afford one working at McDonalds provided you don't have significant debt. If artists want to live in Detroit, they can.
Tangential to your point, why are artists uniquely carved out as a privileged group ( or under-privileged depending on your read on things ) here as opposed to other similarly suffering groups?
Isn't a HVAC-technician with a small family just as not affected by sky-high rents & the displacement that follows gentrification?
I don't get why artists are owed a 'quota', as such.
Actually there is a reason, at least in NYC, why artists were the advanced guard of gentrification. There was a zoning ordinance passed that made it legal to use former industrial buildings as residences if the tenant was an artist. So, in order to transmute old industrial buildings into residences, developers needed artists in a transitional stage. I remember reading a journal article on urban history that had all the gory details, and that it was deliberately passed with the intent of gentrifying these artist districts or zones. After some quick Googling I think it was the rezoning in 1976 which is just in time to set up the gentrification and yuppie wave of the 80s.
That s good question and a fair one. I think it’s because people have s romanticized view or art and artists. Art is for its own sake (not profit). Art is expressive, it captures the zeitgeist, angst and all kinds of negative things in society and exposes them, etc. They are edgy, set customs and mores, poke the establishment... (of course this is group effort involving boring followers, but never mind)
People who do “grunt work” as it were are seen as cogs in a machine, who while producing necessary good and utilitarian goods, are too quotidian and “Joe” and “Jane Public”.
That particular property isn’t cheap, but I think they’re saying if you’re looking for cheap property in Detroit there is property to be had for cheap, if you’re willing to work on the property and improve it (as the previous owners of property in question did).
185k In 2000 was actually a decent amount. In 2011 that same place was prob 40k or less. Not sure why they are using 2000 numbers when the low was between 2008-2013
There are tons of "cheap" properties, the smart thing would be for these artists to buy their own right now while they can still afford it. Unfortunately they are going to have to move locations as the "hip" areas are now expensive.
Once the suburban kids from more wealthy suburban families started to move in it was all but over. I visited recently and the rough edges and patina and unpredictability has been worn away by the safe suburban values and esthetics of the new residents.
I know it gets tiresome to hear, "You don't know what it was like, man." in regards to gentrification. But I can get over-stylized brew pubs, twee boutiques, foodie small plates and corporate sponsored street fairs anywhere. Those things where not there when it was deemed "Cool". My rent was $400 that I split, the same (rather shitty) apartment now goes for $1600. When the cost of living goes up like that, you've shut our a lot of interesting people looking for a chance to do something interesting.
People with money are chasing "Cool" and it's the one thing you cannot truly buy.