Quote:

By the way, I don't think my points are "profoundly antithetical to the whole idea of a renaissance (a renewal of life, vigor, interest, etc.; rebirth; revival)" at all. My point is that these aspects of renaissance you things listed (which, are synonymous with gentrification) are achieved within a location by changing out the people, rather than the existing population suddenly changing, which pretty much never happens. And the reasons for this are fairly obvious - poor people struggling to survive and feeding drug habits and other bad choices like having a bunch of kids they can't afford aren't going to contribute to the revival of a community via spending on cultural institutions, restaurants, investment in their properties, etc. And you hit the nail on the head when you said that this is exactly why Newark has a real problem. Replacing that with with government funds isn't going to sustain real change.

Quote:
Or at least are different parts of the same process. "Renaissance" implies more of a centrally planned - or at least, enabled - process of revitalizing the a city's core industries and infrastructure; whereas "gentrification", which is more of an organic phenomenon, occurring in residential areas when the overall economic base of the city is strong. Here is a short article from a few years back, that talks about 10 cities in the US - http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner ... an-comeback-cities-map/2/

Devilsadvocate's point - while profoundly antithetical to the whole idea of a renaissance (a renewal of life, vigor, interest, etc.; rebirth; revival) - raises points that the panelists in Newark seemed oblivious to; namely that cities undergo these types in transformations in large part due to in-migration and "windfall stayers" (as John Bruner put it) who contribute to the renaissance. As Baltimore showed, while certain areas (Inner Harbor) did well, other neighborhoods did not despite significant public spending. I don't envy Newark's officials and planners...

Renaissance and gentrification are the same thing described with different political lenses.

Yeah, these are two names for the same thing. The reality is that the crappy populations of undesirable places don't magically improve to make for a desirable neighborhood. They get displaced and leave as amenities attract the right sort of people that don't commit crime, spend money on restaurants, fix and improve their houses or build new properties, have good jobs, spend to send their kids to good private schools, spend a lot of time and money to ensure their kids get good grades (rather than join gangs), and so on. The reason DTJC became nice is because the right people (transplants from NYC and Brooklyn or people that would otherwise have lived there) moved here, making it essentially the 6th borough. The crappy people got up and moved elsewhere as rents skyrocketed. The displacement of the crappy people isn't a problem, it is a solution.

Now, get a nice neighborhood, build crappy public housing (or "mixed income" housing) and watch it go to hell. Anyone who has lived in Chicago will know what I'm talking about.

Liberals don't like to admit the above, but it is true. But as usual they want to have it all and want someone else to pay for it. It would "feel good" if the lower classes got handouts from wealthy people who happily lived next door to them and everyone got along and sang Kumbaya and the children of those lower class people attended pricey liberal arts colleges and became community activists and other leeches on society just like they did! But usually they just find that the rich people next door have a lot to steal from or hate them because they always call the cops when they do illegal things.

Sorry, but rennaisance without gentrification is unlikely. The cash it takes to rehab crumbling old houses is not going to come from the same demographic as is currently there to rent to. A half century of neglect in Newark (or JC) is not going to be reversed without the middle class.

And I hate to break it to you, you totally ARE a gentrifier! Maybe early wave rather than the "is it safe yet?" crowd, but that's what you are.

"I am all for a good Renaissance for the untouched parts of JC... Gentrification, not so much..."


Dan Ivers | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

A panel that included representatives from local government, real estate and media convened Monday night to discuss the mounting economic momentum in Newark's downtown.

And while they may not be quite sure what to call it, they all agreed on one thing: it's happening, and happening fast.

Story