19 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.

  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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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