Gentrification

[Silophant]

Sigh. There's a bunch of reasonable demands there, and they probably could have made progress on them if they hadn't interspersed them with a bunch of totally absurd ones.

Still, though, as far as effective protesting goes, its a step up from the Occupy one a few years ago where a bunch of students occupied Social Sciences tower, bravely inconveniencing only the faculty members that were most likely to already agree with them.

[Nick]

This is pretty good:

http://truestories.gawker.com/destroy-a ... 1684973590

[ECtransplant]

Is there a non-gawker link to the story?

[Nick]

I can change the link to look like an Upworthy URL if you want

[seanrichardryan]

What is gawker?

[Snelbian]

I can change the link to look like an Upworthy URL if you want

Okay, I snorted that time...

[ECtransplant]

Touche. Idk. Gawker is just one of those places I refuse to give pageviews.

[mister.shoes]

Viva Gentrification!
In Los Angeles, it has meant less segregation.

[mplsjaromir]

Love the throwaway line "develop new ways to fund housing for poor and middle-income people." Good one.

[Nathan]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... MP=ema_565

[VacantLuxuries]

There was a good semi-satirical article I can't seem to find right now that said the only way to stop gentrification wholesale is for everyone to live with their parents and never move anywhere.

[mattaudio]

"Why gentrification is good"
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/ ... ked-cities

[FISHMANPET]

Does that ever go anywhere? I read quite a few paragraphs and it just felt like some never ending overwrought introduction.

[LakeCharles]

I mean it's a book review. So it doesn't necessarily "go" anywhere. It's far ranging and thought-provoking though. At least I thought. Also, to boil it down to "Why Gentrification is Good," misses the point, as I took it.

[FISHMANPET]

But it's not a book review? I mean, if it is he's doing an awful good job of hiding it. I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to get out of reading this or why I should bother reading it at all.

E: It mentions this book but if it's a review, talk about burying the lede http://www.amazon.com/City-Grid-How-Yor ... 0306822849

[LakeCharles]

But it's not a book review? I mean, if it is he's doing an awful good job of hiding it. I'm just not sure what I'm supposed to get out of reading this or why I should bother reading it at all.

Fair enough. It's how the New Yorker always does book reviews. Lump together a couple books on a subject, talk about the subject, summarize and review each book a little, and use it all to make an argument. But maybe you knew that already.

[FISHMANPET]

As someone capable of reading and writing english words and sentences, I'm offended at the mere existence of this piece of garbage, but maybe that's just par for the course with the New Yorker? String together some really big words, throw in a couple book titles, use some hot button word "Gentrification!" and now you too can be gigantic pain in the ass at all your intelectual parties attended by other enormous pains in the ass.

[LakeCharles]

I'll add the New Yorker to my long mental list of things Peter hates.

[FISHMANPET]

It's a very long list!

At this point I'm determined to finish this article but man.

[FISHMANPET]

OK, basically finished it. There's actually a molecule of interesting thought hiding at the bottom. Basically the idea that a city changes or dies. But it didn't really engage with the idea in any way that would be suggested by a title like "Why Gentrification is Good," which is probably why that's already been removed. It's much better as a rambling navel gazey thinkpiece than it is as a critical review of Gentrification.