My NY nters..........does New York still have the same ambience(swag)?

[HEATHEN]

I don't get the focus on where groups of ppl rest their head at.

That all the Jews, Hispanics, blacks, white Russians, Indians, other Asians, and other ethnic groups all reside in different parts of the city and it's greater boroughs means what exactly?

To me the economic problems and specifically gentrification is separate from that. You can't tell me if they were all making more money or if the middle class was bigger we'd suddenly see a change in where these groups of ppl choose to live.

Really?


So if there was economic parity between ethnic groups, folks wouldn't choose to live in more high-end parts of the city? You're telling me that folks wouldn't want to live in communities where schools get higher funding, there are more employment opportunities, less crime, less police profiling/harassment, better infrastructure, better public amenities?



And you don't think that segregation and gentrification are intertwined? You think they are mutually exclusive phenomena?


Hm, interesting. So financially able individuals who has the option to live in a higher-end part of town but chooses to live in Sunset Park, Bushwick, Crown Heights etc, traditionally minority neighborhoods thus driving up costs and pricing out existing residents, that has NOTHING to do with the affects of segregation overtime?


I disagree, I see gentrification as the product of that segregation. I see an issue that could've been addressed and has now festered into a systemic disease.

 

[yamcha]

Nyc is wack now.

 

[Master Zik]

I don't get the focus on where groups of ppl rest their head at.

That all the Jews, Hispanics, blacks, white Russians, Indians, other Asians, and other ethnic groups all reside in different parts of the city and it's greater boroughs means what exactly?

To me the economic problems and specifically gentrification is separate from that. You can't tell me if they were all making more money or if the middle class was bigger we'd suddenly see a change in where these groups of ppl choose to live.

Really?

So if there was economic parity between ethnic groups, folks wouldn't choose to live in more high-end parts of the city? You're telling me that folks wouldn't want to live in communities where schools get higher funding, there are more employment opportunities, less crime, less police profiling/harassment, better infrastructure, better public amenities?

No. That's not what I'm saying at all

It's not about choosing to live in the "high-end" area. I'm not talking about schools, less crime, or any of that

I'm asking you what makes you think that if there was economic parity that these ethnic groups would choose to live in more diverse areas of the city as opposed to a place that consists of their ethnic group?

You've came at and made light of the fact that despite ppl of different cultures, races, and ethnicities being able to interact in certain parts of the city at the end of the day they go home to their segregated areas. Why do you think if they had a more money they'd choose to integrate when it comes to where they live? What's stopping them (if there's true economic parity) from using that money to fix up the neighborhood they're currently living in which would inevitably lead to better public amenities, better infrastructure, etc. Bloomberg has shown if you actually put the money in to fixing ****, things can get better (stop & frisk, profiling,etc. arguments aside)

You're basically saying that if they had more employment opportunities eventually they'd choose to live in an area that wasn't segregated. More money, means more integrated. Historically speaking, it's not the rich or even the well off that live in inclusive communities. Going off experience, these older heads in each group have set down roots and are planning on dying there. So tell me why do you think that?

Cuz at this point it almost seems you're not even talking about the segregation of groups of ppl based on race or ethnicity but specifically the obvious segregation between the rich and the poor. It's basically no **** sherlock that ppl with more money choose not to live in low income areas unless they about to gentrify the *****.

And you don't think that segregation and gentrification are intertwined? You think they are mutually exclusive phenomena?

The two can be intertwined but one does not necessitate the other.

There can be gentrification without segregation and there can be segregation without gentrification.

Hm, interesting. So financially able individuals who has the option to live in a higher-end part of town but chooses to live in Sunset Park, Bushwick, Crown Heights etc, traditionally minority neighborhoods thus driving up costs and pricing out existing residents, that has NOTHING to do with the affects of segregation overtime?

What do you mean the affects of segregation over time?

Gentrification is pretty damn clear in it's process. It doesn't target segregated areas. If you follow the history of it in NYC it's driven out or relocated dozens of groups. Brooklyn is a perfect example.

I disagree, I see gentrification as the product of that segregation.

I definitely disagree with this. Gentrification is not a product of the segregation of ppl of specific ethnic/racial groups. Gentrification is the product of capitalism.

 

[brendasdeadbaby]

Nyc is wack now.

Far FARRR from it. I love when folks visit NYC and do all the overpriced tourist things that are designed just to take your money and eat at all the places the tour guide tells you (restaurants and company's pay for them to direct tourist to them) then talk about wack.

 

[americangenius]

I don't get the focus on where groups of ppl rest their head at.

That all the Jews, Hispanics, blacks, white Russians, Indians, other Asians, and other ethnic groups all reside in different parts of the city and it's greater boroughs means what exactly?

To me the economic problems and specifically gentrification is separate from that. You can't tell me if they were all making more money or if the middle class was bigger we'd suddenly see a change in where these groups of ppl choose to live.

Yea, dude is clearly confusing gentrification with segregation. I've been to cities where areas of town are truly segregated and you wouldn't see a black person all day in an area, and you wouldn't see a white person all day in another section of town. NYC it's pretty diverse everywhere you go due to these neighborhoods being on top of each other and transportation being so easily available.

The only "segregation" going on is between the rich and the poor, and it's been like this since the beginning of time in any city.

 

[HEATHEN]

No. That's not what I'm saying at all

It's not about choosing to live in the "high-end" area. I'm not talking about schools, less crime, or any of that

I'm asking you what makes you think that if there was economic parity that these ethnic groups would choose to live in more diverse areas of the city as opposed to a place that consists of their ethnic group?

You've came at and made light of the fact that despite ppl of different cultures, races, and ethnicities being able to interact in certain parts of the city at the end of the day they go home to their segregated areas. Why do you think if they had a more money they'd choose to integrate when it comes to where they live? What's stopping them (if there's true economic parity) from using that money to fix up the neighborhood they're currently living in which would inevitably lead to better public amenities, better infrastructure, etc. Bloomberg has shown if you actually put the money in to fixing ****, things can get better (stop & frisk, profiling,etc. arguments aside)

You're basically saying that if they had more employment opportunities eventually they'd choose to live in an area that wasn't segregated. More money, means more integrated. Historically speaking, it's not the rich or even the well off that live in inclusive communities. Going off experience, these older heads in each group have set down roots and are planning on dying there. So tell me why do you think that?

Cuz at this point it almost seems you're not even talking about the segregation of groups of ppl based on race or ethnicity but specifically the obvious segregation between the rich and the poor. It's basically no **** sherlock that ppl with more money choose not to live in low income areas unless they about to gentrify the *****.
The two can be intertwined but one does not necessitate the other.

There can be gentrification without segregation and there can be segregation without gentrification.
What do you mean the affects of segregation over time?

Gentrification is pretty damn clear in it's process. It doesn't target segregated areas. If you follow the history of it in NYC it's driven out or relocated dozens of groups. Brooklyn is a perfect example.
I definitely disagree with this. Gentrification is not a product of the segregation of ppl of specific ethnic/racial groups. Gentrification is the product of capitalism.

I don't think that people would necessarily live in more "inclusive" or "diverse" areas of the city, I just don't believe people would stick around in their neighborhoods given the economic mobility to have a choice.


So yes I agree gentrification is an economic process, but I'm also saying that if there was no income inequality between ethnic groups as a result of systematic oppression, there would be a lot less segregation.


Yes I do agree a portion of the population chooses to auto-segregate, absolutely. I don't really like when people do this, but at the same time I acknowledge the phenomenon.


Bloomberg's tenure IMO only brought on hyper-gentrification, I don't think he necessarily left NYC any better off than it was before his mayorship. A lot of things are the same and IMO a lot of things are worse, namely gentrification.


My point is that, there's always been a history of segregation in NY. In the 1800s and 1900s the Tenement Housing Department would not allow blacks to rent or buy housing in certain parts of the city. Harlem was pretty much the only option for blacks coming in from the south during the Great Migration. They were forced to pay higher rent and were given less.


Those practices shaped the racial lines in New York. And while Jews and Italians assimilated, blacks cannot. All things considered, gentrification is ABSOLUTELY a consequence of such practices that created segregation.


You can't dismiss the historical factors of oppression and segregation when taking gentrification into account. To say it doesn't target segregated areas, isn't completely true. No it doesn't target all segregated areas, it targets the low-income ones which just so happen to be black and hispanic communities.

The only "segregation" going on is between the rich and the poor, and it's been like this since the beginning of time in any city.

That's simply not true. If that was the case, the data would reflect that. Fact is, segregation is not just class based, it's race and ethnicity based.

 

[Master Zik]

My point is that, there's always been a history of segregation in NY. In the 1800s and 1900s the Tenement Housing Department would not allow blacks to rent or buy housing in certain parts of the city. Harlem was pretty much the only option for blacks coming in from the south during the Great Migration. They were forced to pay higher rent and were given less.

If we're going to talk about the history of segregation in NYC we're gonna have to make some distinctions between when it was enforced, frowned upon to do otherwise, and when it became a choice.

Segregation in NYC wasn't just limited to black ppl and Hispanics.

Furthermore, if what you were saying was true what was once a largely all white Brooklyn would have stayed that way. Now you have black ppl and Hispanics living all over BK from low income areas to the high income areas. I dunno if you researched gentrification in NYC but it isn't a cycle that's continually targeted minorities.

Those practices shaped the racial lines in New York. And while Jews and Italians assimilated, blacks cannot. All things considered, gentrification is ABSOLUTELY a consequence of such practices that created segregation.

Cannot? or will not? Are you saying black ppl assimilating or not is solely based off their skin color? and assimilating in to what exactly?

Any former zoning and "racial lines" drawn imo do not have any bearing on what we're talking about today. All it shows is a practice but they're not causes of the problems now.

Again I'm disagreeing with gentrification is an absolute consequence of practices that created segregation. Gentrification happens without segregation ALL THE TIME. That sentence is loaded. I'll let you unpack it.

You can't dismiss the historical factors of oppression and segregation when taking gentrification into account. To say it doesn't target segregated areas, isn't completely true. No it doesn't target all segregated areas, it targets the low-income ones which just so happen to be black and hispanic communities.

I'm accounting for all of that.

The difference between me and you is you're pretending like gentrification is a racist process made to specifically uproot black ppl and Hispanics despite you acknowledging that it doesn't target segregated areas. It targets low income and run down areas. That those areas tend to consist of minorities is a problem and it is another obstacle that minorities have to face but that's all part of a larger problem not something you simplify down to segregation is the reason gentrification targets minorities. I can't agree with that narrative and how you're reaching that point.

I can understand not liking gentrification because right now your ppl or minorities suffer the consequences but gentrification isn't a process that was designed by somebody to remove minorities. It removes the poor. Pretending economic parity would end gentrification is a lie. Don't think the rich can't target a middle class area and do similar.

If there were economic parity, hell if every minority jumped to the upper class, gentrification would still happen. Areas will always lose value and be ripe for rich ppl to swoop in and try to get a deal, that leads to more business in the area, which leads to rising rent and overall prices, that leads to ppl who can't afford it being driven out, that leads to more of a police presence, which leads to less crime, and so on and so on, etc. Then in about a decade and change the next low income area will be targeted.

 

[truth-serum]

The fact that Bloomberg got to be mayor for more than two terms should tell you something...

 

[HEATHEN]

If we're going to talk about the history of segregation in NYC we're gonna have to make some distinctions between when it was enforced, frowned upon to do otherwise, and when it became a choice.

Segregation in NYC wasn't just limited to black ppl and Hispanics.

Furthermore, if what you were saying was true what was once a largely all white Brooklyn would have stayed that way. Now you have black ppl and Hispanics living all over BK from low income areas to the high income areas. I dunno if you researched gentrification in NYC but it isn't a cycle that's continually targeted minorities.

You're absolutely right, segregation in NYC wasn't just limited to blacks and hispanics. At one point, Jews, Italians and Irish people were subjected to oppressive housing policies. But because of the color of their skin, they were able assimilate, absolutely.

it isn't a cycle that's continually targeted minorities? I guess technically we can say since at one point it did target Jewish, Italian and Irish neighborhoods, but again they were able to assimilate. When corporate gentrification move into historically black and latino neighborhoods, those residents aren't equally able to glean the benefits of a growing local job market, because those corporations still hire white folks from out of the neighborhoods. Historically, "white minorities" were able to overcome that just because of the color of their skin.

Cannot? or will not? Are you saying black ppl assimilating or not is solely based off their skin color? and assimilating in to what exactly?

Any former zoning and "racial lines" drawn imo do not have any bearing on what we're talking about today. All it shows is a practice but they're not causes of the problems now.

Again I'm disagreeing with gentrification is an absolute consequence of practices that created segregation. Gentrification happens without segregation ALL THE TIME. That sentence is loaded. I'll let you unpack it.

Absolutely I'm saying that. Assimilation is a lot easier when you're white. It's why there has to be initiatives in place that forces corporate gentrifiers to hire locals. It's why new high-rise apartment complexes need to offer rent-controlled apartments to existing residents of the neighborhood. If minorities were able to assimilate seamlessly as "white minorities" and later Asians, they'd have access to those positions without the help of initiatives. Fact is blacks and latinos aren't given the same opportunities.

Any former zoning and housing practices have no bearing on what we're talking about today? I 100% disagree. Especially considering that much of those zoning and housing practices have shaped the way neighborhoods are today, only now historically black and latino neighbor hoods are being hyper-gentrified at an alarming rate, even more so than the 80s, 90s and early 00s.

Gentrification does happen without segregation, but what I'm saying is gentrification does undoubtedly occur disproportionately more in black and hispanic communities and it's not solely because of the economics. It's a result of intentional discrimination to perpetuate segregation. If blacks and latinos were given the economic mobility to go elsewhere, I'm sure by now we would see a lot more black and hispanics in wealthier parts of the city and I'm sure if they weren't blackballed from renting and buying in certain communities, NYC would be a lot more diverse.

I don't believe that people would necessarily just stay in one place or auto-segregate, that just doesn't make any type of logical sense.

I'm accounting for all of that.

The difference between me and you is you're pretending like gentrification is a racist process made to specifically uproot black ppl and Hispanics despite you acknowledging that it doesn't target segregated areas. It targets low income and run down areas. That those areas tend to consist of minorities is a problem and it is another obstacle that minorities have to face but that's all part of a larger problem not something you simplify down to segregation is the reason gentrification targets minorities. I can't agree with that narrative and how you're reaching that point.

I can understand not liking gentrification because right now your ppl or minorities suffer the consequences but gentrification isn't a process that was designed by somebody to remove minorities. It removes the poor. Pretending economic parity would end gentrification is a lie. Don't think the rich can't target a middle class area and do similar.

If there were economic parity, hell if every minority jumped to the upper class, gentrification would still happen. Areas will always lose value and be ripe for rich ppl to swoop in and try to get a deal, that leads to more business in the area, which leads to rising rent and overall prices, that leads to ppl who can't afford it being driven out, that leads to more of a police presence, which leads to less crime, and so on and so on, etc. Then in about a decade and change the next low income area will be targeted.

Gentrification may not on its face be a "racist process". But when folks move into historically black and latino neighborhoods, raising prices, shutting down existing business for corporations, denying locals employment opportunities, then systemic racism occurs.


Gentrification doesn't effect all ethnic groups equally and that's the difference. For some areas, it may be somewhat of a boon but for black and hispanic communities, it's not.


The rich can absolutely target a middle-class area and do the same, but do you think that if that middle-class area was predominantly white they'd be effected the same way? I don't believe so. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I'm just saying that gentrification doesn't have the same ramifications for everyone equally.

 

[midas whale]

Far FARRR from it. I love when folks visit NYC and do all the overpriced tourist things that are designed just to take your money and eat at all the places the tour guide tells you (restaurants and company's pay for them to direct tourist to them) then talk about wack.

According to this thread he isn't a tourist but a resident. A resident that doesn't want to call 911 because he carbon monoxide alarm is not going off at the moment. http://niketalk.com/t/635215/carbon-monoxide-in-my-home