If we go back to 1970, for example, we will find most major cities having various poor neighbourhoods. Whether called slums or ghettoes the rental paid for a flat was very low.
The areas were high crime/must avoid parts of a city and in some places, rent collectors needed police protection.
Then something happened.
Outsiders began to buy up buildings on the edges and fix them up and re-rent them at a higher rate to the middle class. This was done carefully, almost surgically, so that there was little note that something was actually happening.
As time passed more buildings were bought, more middle class neighbourhoods flowed into what had been slums.
This procedure continued slowly, step by step, so that many areas which would send fear into the hearts of residents of the city were now ‘gentrified’.
The flat which used to get $50 a month moved to $90 then $120 until in 2016 the flat might go for $630 a month. This was no longer affordable for many people who were forced out without alternative.
It was not that the guy who lived in Bedford-Stuyvesant, which had been a major slum, could move from this building to that one two blocks over, it was that he could not afford the rentals for all were beyond the pocket.
There was no ‘affordable’ housing alternative. Every where had been ‘gentrified’ so that the same streets which in 1980 were dark and dangerous as the sun fell now have quiet people walking home at midnight.
Many of the first buildings were virtually auctioned off as the original owners had died or simply couldn’t be bothered and stopped paying taxes, letting the city take over. The city would hold an auction, happy to receive the back taxes, and the new owner, who spent slightly more than he would on a car, now owned a premises.
As many of the slums were actually made up of well built brownstones, which fifty years before were middle class homes, the repairs were often replacing a toilet, painting a wall, fixing the electrical system.
Renting the flats at a ‘reasonable rate’ (if one was securely middle class) had them filled quickly. This left the previous tenants with no where to go except away.
On one hand, seeing the shrinking of slums is a good thing, but on the other, where do the old tenants go?
What is the Main Cause of a Heart Attack? What is its Solution? A heart attack is the blockage of… Read More
In the vast economic arena, one term that often takes center stage, inciting extensive debates and discussions, is the "debt… Read More
De-Dollarization: The Changing Face of Global Finance The financial landscape is in a state of flux, with an intriguing economic… Read More
The curtains closed on a dramatic Bundesliga season with Bayern Munich standing tall once again, clinching their 11th straight title.… Read More
The Unfolding Story of Celine Dion's Health In recent news that has left fans across the globe stunned, iconic singer… Read More
As the echoes of the recent NBA season start to fade, the attention of enthusiasts is firmly glued to one… Read More
View Comments
it is bad enough when perfectly capable people lose their job and have to sustain from country help, but to lose your home is terrible. If low rents are alternative i am completely for this solution, but even if home is for free until people find solution it should not be some disgusting hole filled with rats. Sometimes homeless have no blame in losing homes, there was situations in which contractor in failure took flats or apartments and people we re forced to live wherever.
A slum, a cheap slum was turned into a decent neighbourhood without any consideration of what happened to the people.