22 thoughts on “CityViews: Revitalization, Not Gentrification, is What’s Coming to Mott Haven

  1. Valid points but I still have my doubts that market-rate can exist next door to low-income. We’ll know in a few years I guess. But it’s better to have builders interested in an area than having them avoid it at all costs. The east Bronx is filled with stable middle-class neighborhoods that were never abandoned as was the case in the south Bronx in the 1970s.

  2. It’s not gentrification they are worried about tho. It’s displacement and those two things are not the same, so regardless of wether it’s revitalization or gentrification, we need to stop displacement so current residents can enjoy the benefits of revitalization- the only way to do that is through jobs. Livable wage jobs that start at $40/hr and go up from there. Anything less is unsustainable.

    • Then people should educate themselves so they can earn those wages. There are plenty of city jobs that pay more than $40 an hour. New York City needs teachers of color, the pay there starts at $55k. The Police Department, Fire Department, MTA all are always hiring.

  3. Photo shows 163rd St which is not in Mott Haven but in Melrose! Is the article referring to Mott Haven or Melrose…big difference!

  4. Good read, great opinions but fact is market rate and low income can NOT exist next door to each other and the current rent laws allow (20%vacancy bonus + preferential rent scams) landlords to move old tenants out very easily when neighborhoods become “hot!” Maybe once the current rent laws for NY improves then, I’ll believe our neighborhoods are being revitalized and not gentrified. I much prefer a locally owned cafe over a DD and I’m sure many other advocates and activist fighting for the rights of low income people do as well assuming everyone can afford a descent cup of Joe.

  5. Pingback: CityViews: The Activists and Residents of Mott Haven Aren’t Against its Revitalization. In Fact, They Caused it. – Mediasota

  6. Pingback: CityViews: Residents, Not Investors, Revitalized Mott Haven. Displacement, Not Progress, is What They Fear - Welcome2TheBronx™

  7. Pingback: South Bronx Development: Opposing Views - This Is The Bronx

  8. Great article. That area can be vital. I’m for anything that would rise the Bronx to some high standards. Restaurants similar to Porto Salvo, coffee bars, shops, fresh markets, market and affordable housing. BTW, I told my co-workers about the Mottley Kitchen. They went there for lunch and love the place.

  9. Good article, it does explain the revitalization aspect of this development…BUT how long do you think the area will be “balanced” before it sways towards Gentrification??? I personally accept gentrification as part of Urban Growth…but what I object to is: in order to “revitalize” and existing lower income area the comfortable poorer families are pushed out into other neighborhoods that have different needs and wants for their community. Different bars, different music, different foods. This makes for an uncomfortable fit. Sooo a peaceful low crime area pretty soon is just another expansion of what was in the South Bronx but is now just spread out…changing what is considered quality of life for different residents that have supported so much of their choice of community for generations.

  10. I am all for revitalization as long as it has included a plan to house those who do not fit into the “affordable” category. I believe in diversity in a community. Housing projects taught us a very grim lesson about what happens to a community without economic and ethnic diversity. The middle classes are attracted communities with good schools and have the option to find communities that have them. This is not the case for the economically challenged. The plan included two new schools. Safety is important to all, no matter the economic status. The plan addresses this by developing common areas.

  11. The entitlement of those who rent is pretty remarkable. It’s important for the city to allow housing to be built to ensure we don’t create a situation where there aren’t enough places for people to live (that’s the only thing that causes homelessness). That said, if you wish to remain somewhere forever and have a stake in the future of the block, you need to own that property. Everything else is ridiculous.

    • Bronxite, I think you make a fair point that we ought to check the validity of anyone’s claim to have a right to freeze the city as is: renters, owners, squatters, whoever. Tempting as it is, none of us have the prerogative or power to press pause on the city’s evolution. However, as a practical matter, if you live in a multi-unit rental building, in a neighborhood where that is the predominant residential setting, it simply isn’t possible to buy your way into a forever stake in that neighborhood.

      On a philosophical level, I think “entitlement” is an interesting concept when it comes to real estate. As a homeowner, I technically own this 100-ft-x-18-ft lot in which I am sitting from the legal maximum height of my building down to the core of the earth. I “earned” that rather extraordinary entitlement by buying it from someone who bought it from someone else, and so forth, back to when settlers first came to the area and starting treating parts of the Earth as property. I did the buying in part with money that my parents and in-laws could lend or give me because they’d worked hard, and because our people had enjoyed advantages (and avoided disadvantages) different from those presented to other peoples. The concept of private property is by now a time-honored and workable system, but it is not like the rights and privileges associated with it are based on anything more than someone deciding a long time ago that they were entitled to something that others might have thought belonged to us all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *