Has Harlem been completely gentrified?

[quote] On every Harlem corner: big money and bulldozers threaten black history

In New York in 1975, Jacqueline Kennedy was worried about a plan to destroy Grand Central Terminal.

Writing to the mayor, the former first lady asked: “Is it not cruel to let our city die by degrees, stripped of all her proud monuments, until there will be nothing left of all her history and beauty to inspire our children? This is the time to take a stand, to reverse the tide, so that we won’t all end up in a uniform world of steel and glass boxes.”

Nearly 50 years later, the same threat hangs over Harlem. It is nothing less than existential. In the home of so much African American history, churches and other landmarks are disappearing with a rapidity that invites thoughts of the indifference that places our whole planet at risk.

The gentrification of Harlem has been blamed on the disregard and greed of white people. The truth is much more complex.

For sure, Bill de Blasio’s trickle-down housing policy has set the stage for rampant destruction. Any possible rezoning site seen as under-utilized is placed in certain peril. To the New York mayor, high-end high-rises are the only way to gain “affordable” units. No matter that his “affordable” is beyond the means of most. As entire blocks are cleared for condominiums, displacement is just so much collateral damage.

But there are black leaders assisting in this violation. In the fight for Harlem’s heritage and soul, they are the enemy within.

Nearly every two months, another church is lost. From 96th to 155th Streets, an estimated 350 properties are owned by churches. According to the Manhattan borough president, Gale Brewer, a study in progress considers these structures as the mayor might: as 5m sq ft of development rights, potentially translated into 5,600 two-bedroom apartments.

In Harlem, some truths are universally acknowledged. Local politicians are manipulated from downtown; a deal has been made in the dark to sacrifice black Harlem, its legacy and people, to provide convenient housing for the better off. Everyone knows the gap between black wealth and white is at a ratio of 100:1. Everyone knows new residents are bound to be white.

More obscure is how for each landmark recognized in Harlem there are five in Greenwich Village, where three-quarters of buildings are designated versus about 10% uptown.

Attempts to excuse this disparity amount to victim blaming. Sure, Jane Jacobs took down Robert Moses’ proposed superhighway that would have split the Village in two. But 30 years earlier, unsung Harlem preservationists led by Dr Louis T Wright and architect Vertner Woodson Tandy also wrangled with the all-powerful planning tsar – and won.

Was Harlem always a black neighborhood?

It was black when it became black, R2.

But the point is that once it became black, white people were terrified of even going near the area.

Now that prices in lower Manhattan are fucking outrageous, they have no choice but to "colonize" the more affordable areas, like Harlem.

Cunts.

No one owns a neighborhood

[quote] And now, you can't even beat them off with a stick.

Hmmm, OP?

Harlem was a white neighborhood. Jews, Italians, Irish. The name "Harlem" is Dutch.

Times change. ALL neighborhoods in Manhattan are being gentrified, if they already haven't.

So now the progressive thing is to have all-black neighborhoods and all-white neighborhoods, with no mixing?

I’m concerned about the displacement because people need a place to live. Beyond that, fuck the black history shit and fuck the black churches. Harlem was white before it was black. The white folk moved away and the area’s history went with them. A lot of those black churches used to be synagogues or Catholic, Lutheran etc. The pendulum is swinging back and the old white neighborhoods are being reclaimed.

[quote]Nearly every two months, another church is lost.

Oh, cry us a river.

Harlem (which used to go by the original Dutch name "Haarlem") actually used to be mostly white. It became a black neighborhood only around the turn of the century, when houses in one of the blacker neighborhoods on the West side, then called the Tenderloin, were bought out to be demolished to make room for the first Penn Station. Many more blacks moved there from Brooklyn (particularly the Fort Greene neighborhood) so as to be clkoser to work in Manhattan after a black foothold was established there.

Neighborhoods are not owned by any one race. White neighborhoods become blacker, black neighborhoods become whiter. To make it legal that only blacks can buy property in Harlem would mean legally then that only whites could buy property in other neighborhoods.

[quote]To make it legal that only blacks can buy property in Harlem would mean legally then that only whites could buy property in other neighborhoods.

This is the kind of hard truth that makes leftists' heads explode. They are completely blind to their own hypocrisy.

Originally, the part of Harlem opened to black residents in the early 1900s was fairly limited. Even into the 1940s, some areas of West Harlem were predominately Jewish - a number of the churches along Lenox Avenue were originally built as synagogues. Composer Richard Rodgers grew up in a brownstone on Mount Morris Park. There was even a significant Finnish community over near Madison and 127th Street. The original black neighborhood began to expand in the 1920s, and that increased in the 1930s, as people moved up from the south. The housing shortages that followed WWII impacted Harlem badly. There was overcrowding and great resentment that blacks were being restricted from a lot of the housing stock. After the war, the public housing program, under Robert Moses, concentrated low-income housing in Harlem, the Upper West Side and the South Bronx. White people began to move to the suburbs and economic decline set in. Harlem became trendy for whites again in the 90s, just as Bushwick and Williamsburgh did, because real estate costs were at that time significant lower than the rest of the city. Very nice brownstones could be purchased for a fraction of what they would cost below110th Street.

Well, we moved out. That should make OP happy.

Segregation is progressive now.

[quote]And now, you can't even beat them off with a stick.

I can't beat anyone off with a stick, either.

[quote] And now, you can't even beat them off with a stick.

I thought they preferred handguns as their form of communication.

Interestingly, as white people were priced out of mid and lower Manhattan, they first went to Brooklyn instead of going North to Harlem. Brooklyn this gentrified faster than Harlem. While 125th to 135th is going gangbusters, the gentrification has slowed down north of that.

Interestingly, NYC has a policy that when big companies build apartment buildings in fancy parts of town, they must also build in less desirable locations for moderate income people. They do build cheaper housing that brought the middle class to Harlem, but much of that was cheaply done, just to fulfill the law

Harlem’s gentrification has moved the poor residents up north to the Bronx and that’s where most of the city’s crime takes place as a result

15 years ago, as Harlem was gentrifying, I bought an big apartment for $220k. I left after living there 7 years. It was fine but too much of chore to get anywhere with good restaurants and nightlife. My old apartment just sold again for $1.1 million. That’s crazy

Good to see threads full of black racism and bigotry. So many pretend it doesn't exist and worse, rationalize/justify it. But in reality, racist blacks are no different to the KKK, Evangelicals and right-wing white folk.

^ troll alert

Im from the Bronx yknow

How much did you get for it after 7 years, R19?

Majority of white people never wanted to live around Black people but then went into Black towns and murdered the residents and burned those towns to the ground.

I blame Marcus Samuelsson for opening up Red Rooster in Harlem.

It became trendy, and Harlem was never the same. Lol.

Blame Bill Clinton OP.

He added so many prisons across the nation that most of the Harlem folk ended up behind bars.

It was only a matter of time that others would replace them.

Keep your noses clean.

^R21 Fascist thread monitor alert

Sure r 26 because every Black person nabbed by police are always guilty and all the white people nabbed by police always have extenuating circumstances.

It's still pretty Black.

And I suspect OP is a shit stirring white troll.

And all those gilded age mansions torn down to make way for high rises? NYC is not a museum. My shitty little town used to have homes going for $300k max a few years ago and now we have $1mm sales going through. It’s happening everywhere.

R29, yes very middle class black although blacks haven’t been a majority in about a decade

R23, I sold it for 500k

Harlem has become so gay. The gays moved up there in droves over the last 15 years

When blacks moved in to replace the Dutch and other whites, was that "colonizing?"

Or they get a pass because they are darker.

It was very Irish ☘️, before that it was very Dutch

Black Irish?

It's happening in all cities. There's cities even in the rustbelt that average those in their 30s, which was unheard of in the 90s (they were very concerned about losing young people). As affordable living arrangements become scarce, and city living becomes a trend again for the middle class on up, of course there's going to be young, middle class people snatching up cheap homes/ apartments in previously sketchy neighborhoods.

What sucks is that once again it creates a division and competition between classes, which inevitably entangles with race. Blacks and Hispanics make up 40% of those living in poverty (by gov definitions, which is an income under 52k for 3 people in one household.) They're that far behind.

What sucks even more is that those in poverty, living in cheap neighborhoods, usually were living there for a reason, not for a trend. They need public transportation, areas to walk to, apartments that are under 1k a month, etc. Assistance is located in the cities. All things rural and suburban areas usually don't offer, even if they consist of lower income residents.

Neighborhoods change over time, Harlem is no different. I remember when Archie Bunker drove a cab and refused to drive into Harlem. Working class people can't afford Harlem now, whether black or white, only the green, the color of American money, and lots of it. Maybe a conglomerate can be formed by moneyed black folks, Beyonce, JayZ, Puffy, etc and make Harlem a priority. Unless they don't want to live there either. Neighborhoods change, times change, people change, not everyone likes change...

R34 a good example of what the difference is: my partner's younger sibling is into city living and can't afford an upscale neighborhood. There's many in the same boat. They're descended upon these neighborhoods in droves because it's cheap. However, but doing this, it's making the area unaffordable because as low income as they are, they aren't doing as poorly as the people that were already living there. They have cars, they can afford hundreds more a month in rent increases, etc. And they aren't really the main culprit -- next comes the people in even higher income brackets because they see the neighborhood is turning. In turn, wealthy people buy up properties as investments, raising costs quickly. It's a domino effect.

No one is arguing this is being done with malicious intent. It all starts out with lower income whites moving in, but because they're slightly ahead due to long term consequences of racism, it pushes minorities out. They struggle to find somewhere to go. It's not as easy for them to relocate because of the reasons I mentioned in R37 -- they need access to services only found in cities. It's not simply a lifestyle choice for them.

There's no way answer as to what to do either. No one wants to put segregation on the books. It won't help people being displaced by doing that. All the cities can do is set aside affordable living and make deals with property owners or developers, but that comes with issues too.

There's nothing wrong with having some empathy towards people being priced out of their homes. Hell, even in my suburban town it's even happening because as more higher income people move in, they keep raising taxes. A lot of people's incomes aren't keeping up to stay in their own homes.

R38 of course but it's not just about "not liking it". It's a fact that wealth disparity is growing and half the people out there are falling way behind. With a growing population and more demands for homes, there's a lot of people being shuffled around at once. Some with no where to go that will work out. Then you see the complaints about growing homeless population in these areas, but everyone wants to shrug their shoulders instead of compromising. Upper class people don't need to own every inch of this country. There's ways of doing things without throwing people out on the streets.

[quote] What sucks even more is that those in poverty, living in cheap neighborhoods, usually were living there for a reason, not for a trend. They need public transportation, areas to walk to, apartments that are under 1k a month, etc. Assistance is located in the cities. All things rural and suburban areas usually don't offer, even if they consist of lower income residents.

Nailed it.

[quote] No one is arguing this is being done with malicious intent. It all starts out with lower income whites moving in, but because they're slightly ahead due to long term consequences of racism, it pushes minorities out. They struggle to find somewhere to go. It's not as easy for them to relocate because of the reasons I mentioned in R37 -- they need access to services only found in cities. It's not simply a lifestyle choice for them.

Nailed it again.

You absolutely understand the problem.

I remember being with my bf and we drove through Harlem and he said just keep looking straight ahead and not to make eye contact. Wondering what would have happened had I made eye contact, winked, and licked my lips?

You should check out a documentary called FLAG WARS that was on PBS a few years back - it's about middle-class white gays moving into a poor black neighborhood in Columbus, Ohio.

R42 You would have been fine, you were worrying for nothing. Most black men really like the gays, especially in places like Harlem and the Bronx, they see us as kindred spirits as like them we have had to overcome huge hurdles. Your boyfriend should have parked the car and you should have walked over to a group of black men and just hugged and embraced them, they would have appreciated it for sure..

The actual black community that was founded in NYC was called Seneca Village. It was dismantled by white people to build Central Park.

R44 "Most black men really like the gays"

You are living in a fantasy world, bless you and keep you.

R37 Exactly.

Harlem was not a choice. Black people were kind of stuck there and made the best of it.

This thread scares me.

R45, whole neighborhoods have been demolished for one reason or another over the decades, many of them were white neighborhoods. That's life in the big city, boy. Seneca Village was not demolished for racial reasons. I understand that limited intelligence and a lack of knowledge seriously limits one's ability to reason and process complexity.

Would gentrification of any city be considered a First World problem or what? Just asking.

[quote] Seneca Village was not demolished for racial reasons

Sure it was. It was made up of poor blacks, the ones with the least political and social power to stop government. It happens like this constantly. Bus and train depots as well as garbage plants are placed in black neighborhoods because the residents don't have the political power to fight it.

The UWS was also demolished because of the poor Hispanics (and whites) that lived there.

When NYC City Planner Robert Moses, a notorious racist, tried to demolish the row houses in Brooklyn for a highway, middle class white people fought back and saved them. He learned quickly whom he could push around and whom he couldn't.

I live in what was always considered a Jewish part of New York. When I moved into my apartment building 40 years ago I was one of the few non Jews. We had one old Asian man, no blacks and no Latinos. Now the neighborhood and my building are predominantly Asian and Latino and the Jews are very much the minority. It’s still a great neighborhood and I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else.

Neighborhoods are constantly changing in NYC as new immigrants arrive and the old immigrants move to different neighborhoods. Plus, as people are priced out of certain places, they move to others.

No neighborhood remains the same decades later. Chelsea, NY, for example, went from poor to gay to rich straight in 20 years.

What about Chinatown? Is it gentrified as well?

R54 it will be.

Blacks didn't just "move into" neighborhoods and drive people out. That was a privilege accorded white people.

Blacks were allowed the crummiest part of town. Redlining and other racist policies would not allow them to live in other parts of town. They would have been driven out by being asked to leave openly or other not so subtle tactics.

So whoever said "oh they moved into such and such a neighborhood and drove out the previous residents" can just crawl up Trump's asshole.

And BTW, this racist shit stirring makes black people miserable. Most of the black people I know are extremely humble and nice -=- and have dealt with so much shit. So leave them the fuck alone.

NY real estate prices also drove out all the young gay people. And all the young creative people.

Soon, NY will just be owned by Saudi Arabians and Chinese. The Russians will soon be too broke to shop.

[quote] Chelsea, NY, for example, went from poor to gay to rich straight in 20 years.

And that still pisses me the fuck off.

They ruin everything.

[quote]Seneca Village was not demolished for racial reasons

[quote]Sure it was. It was made up of poor blacks

R51 Then please explain to us about Pig Town, also located in what is now Central Park and the other German and Irish immigrants who were forced out.

Not EVERYTHING is about race.

R52- Are you referring to Washington Heights?

If we are being technical, most cities were white or Jewish to begin with.

Like most of the island of Manhattan it's been infested by trust fund kids, 300K professionals, and industry people. Most of these people are white. It's just that simple.

[quote] Then please explain to us about Pig Town, also located in what is now Central Park and the other German and Irish immigrants who were forced out. Not EVERYTHING is about race.

No, it's about poverty with race as a strong confounder. Plus, the Irish weren't considered white back then

The second the Irish were considered white, they were given opportunities to get out of impoverished areas. Blacks were only recently given that courtesy, but are often held back without generational wealth--caused by their housing not being worth as much.

So, seriously.

Where do poor black people move when they get priced out of Harlem?

It's not like anywhere else in Manhattan is affordable.

Or anywhere in the New York metro area, for that matter.

Where else is there to go?

The island of Manhattan was Native American to begin with.

[quote] Where do poor black people move when they get priced out of Harlem?

The South Bronx.

And now that's getting gentrified.

OP Ever hear of The Cotton Club? Actually, Harlem was a popular spot for night clubs and entertainment back in the day and several popular restaurants.

I can name about 10 former mostly white neighborhoods in Philadelphia that are now primarily Black and crime has also skyrocketed in those neighborhoods

That's a million times more common than Black neighborhoods becoming white

That's why the phrase "white flight" was invented

[quote] That's why the phrase "white flight" was invented

I believe that white flight was due to Southern blacks moving to Northern cities, to escape poverty and racism in the South.

As more blacks moved to the cities, whites fled to the suburbs.

THAT is what "white flight" is referring to.

However, that's not the case here.

In this case, rich middle class whites are pricing black people out of their own communities, because it's more affordable.

Get your terms straight.

White flight is not equal to gentrification.

Rich white real estate speculators are the real problem.

Not only are they pricing everyone else out of the market, but they're also pricing EACH OTHER out. And when they can no longer afford to live where they want to live, they start encroaching on the poorer areas, and pricing THEM out.

Pretty soon, there will be no where affordable for ANYONE to live. Least of all, poor people.

There are a fuckton of affluent black people renting and buying in Harlem, but they aren’t noticed for obvious reasons.

The Blacks have allowed it to happen, so "FUCK'EM" right up the real estate ass!!

If they cannot fix an area up, let the Asians& whites with $$$$$ buy them out. No one fucks with me& how I make money!!

R69 Thank you. Detroiter here. Black people are up in arms about a small amount of whites moving back here. Key word, *back*. There are former Jewish enclaves here with stunning architecture and homes that are unlivable due to crime and to be honest, most of the homes are condemnable now. This city was a predominantly white city but most seem to forget that.

R51, Robert Moses demolished MANY white neighborhoods throughout the five borrows durinh. Seneca Village had 225 residents, 2/3rds were black, 1/3rd Irish and German immigrants. 1,600 people were displaced in order to create the park. Displacement happens. It is a fact of life in a growing city.

Moses' racism is more of an urban legend than fact. NYC's population was about 90% White through the 1950s . Given the low number of minorities in the city while he was completing most of his projects, race as a factor is an absurd Idea. Furthermore, his supposed racism is more urban legend than fact, based on one biography.

If a narrative about the past fits two comfortably into the political/ideological zeitgeist of the present, I strongly encourage you to do research and get the facts before mouthing the usual nonsense currently in vogue. A little education and critical thinking will help you spot propaganda a mile away.

^^^boroughs, not burrows

Times change. There hasn't been an Italian in Little Italy since the 1980s and you don't hear Italians whining about it. People move on.

It was IRISH. ITALIAN. AND JEWISH. R6

None of them were considered “white” when they were there. And that’s why they were there. Fucking moron motherfucker.

R76 that’s a massive lie.

When whites move in -- Gentrification. That's racist!

When whites move out -- White Flight. That's racist!

When whites stay put -- Redlining. That's racist!

We don't need your hysterical rendition of the obvious. And we know where you're coming from, and it is not from a good source.

Pfft.

raci$t le$bian troll alert!!

[quote]None of them were considered “white” when they were there. And that’s why they were there. Fucking moron motherfucker.

And none of them are whining about it.

BTW: Seneca Village was razed in 1857.

That's 165 years ago.

Because they were able to move to the neighboring neighborhoods of whites and build their own areas there. Blacks have never had that same courtesy r82.

Actually, there was an unspoken rule back then that the blacks couldn’t come under a certain street unless for work, which no one wanted to hire them anyway. But whites sure go up Manhattan and see no issue. Fucking hypocrite motherfuckers.

City council radical member demanded 57% very affordable units in proposed development on 145th St — after the developer agreed to 40% (which is a lot more than most!)

The developer withdrew the plan, and the deal is dead.

So now there won’t be ANY new affordable housing built on that site. And then they’ll complain that nobody wants to build in Harlem and where’s the affordable housing…

Many posters here seem to be living in the past. Harlem hasn't been majority black for the past 10 years. Not because of whites, who are still less than 15% of Harlem, but because the majority of Harlem is now Hispanic.

[quote]Because they were able to move to the neighboring neighborhoods of whites and build their own areas there. Blacks have never had that same courtesy [R82].

What are you talking about? Blacks moved to plenty of neighborhoods that then became nearly entirely black.

Nope r78

Harlem is completely gentrified.

Haarlem, however, is not.

Nope, OP, it's pretty much still a dirty shit hole, never fear!

It's also jammed with public housing for the permanent poors of every color, but for now almost entirely black, and they too are filthy!

My, the things white people fret about!

As much as I hate to admit it, I'm with R79. Blacks are always exhausted trying to explain their collective lot in life, I'm exhausted being lectured on how their lot in life is all the fault of white people. In my hometown, when the interstate went through, an entire Hungarian neighborhood was destroyed. North Boston, predominantly Italian, was broken when the interstate went through. When the Big Dig wasndone, it saved the area but then it was gentrified. Black people aren't the only victims of infrastructure projects and gentrification.

[Quote] Moses' racism is more of an urban legend than fact.

Absolute bullshit. His biographer Robert Caro was stunned how racist Moses was and documents many policy choices Moses made that reflected his racism. He made sure the bridges on the Long Island Highways to the beaches were low so buses (which tended to carry black patrons) couldn’t drive under them. Moses was not quiet about why he wanted them low. When he designed public pools in NYC, there was one at the border of Harlem and the UWS. He made sure the water was colder and the lifeguards all big and white to dissuade black from going there and to go to the pool in Jackie Robinson park (w145) instead.

These are just two examples of many described in The Power Broker

[Quote] Blacks are always exhausted trying to explain their collective lot in life

Typical white person response—we made sure they stayed at the lowest rungs of society and how dare they complain about it!!

[Quote] Black people aren't the only victims of infrastructure projects and gentrification.

NO ONE says they are. Poor people are and many of them are Black. In fact ALL your examples are about poor people being displaced by gentrification

[Quote] Times change. There hasn't been an Italian in Little Italy since the 1980s and you don't hear Italians whining about it. People move on.

Are you kidding me?? Italians whine about it all the fucking town, blaming the expanding Chinatown

[Quote] I can name about 10 former mostly white neighborhoods in Philadelphia that are now primarily Black and crime has also skyrocketed in those neighborhoods

Um, because poverty breeds crime. Race is irrelevant

r95 I've never known any Italian American to whine about Little Italy. Most of them moved out decades ago.

It's equally as accurate to say crime breeds poverty.

Most people who are poor are not criminals.

[quote]Um, because poverty breeds crime. Race is irrelevant

But black neighborhoods are exceptionally violent and crime-ridden. You don't see that level of anarchy in other poor neighborhoods.

OP look at the gentrification of the Bowery in Manhattan. Did the whinos whine?

DL can be shocking sometimes.

Can you believe DL’ers are denying racism of the 1800s?

What’s next on here? Slaves were “migrants”?

Harlem and the south Bronx have too many projects to ever be “completely gentrified.” Especially East Harlem. Unless the government plans on demolishing the projects - they will always be an issue. See this map - all the red equals huge NYCHA (public housing) complexes in Harlem and the South Bronx.

Developers are putting up luxury buildings across the street from the projects in Harlem and the Bronx, which seems crazy to me - who would want to rent a luxury apartment directly across from hundreds of poor people in living in crumbling and hazardous horrible buildings.

I’m sure racism had nothing to do with Seneca Village being torn down. It had interracial marriage and because it was one of the only areas black people owned houses and were therefore, allowed to vote.

I’m sure that didn’t play a part at all.

I wish people in the 1800s would stop being racist.

[quote] He made sure the bridges on the Long Island Highways to the beaches were low so buses (which tended to carry black patrons) couldn’t drive under them

Do you realize how utterly ridiculous you sound?

[quote]NO ONE says they are. Poor people are and many of them are Black. In fact ALL your examples are about poor people being displaced by gentrification

This entire thread is about how gentrification is racism against black people. I intentionally included examples to make the point that more often than not it's about poverty, not racism.

r103 it was fucking 160 years ago. Get the fuck over it.

Harlem largely was developed and or inhabited by whites for most of its history. Speculation and over development left landlords and other property owners exposed when economic depressions or recessions hit.

As whites left for various reasons (largely due at first to their own economic set backs), property owners turned to two groups, African Americans and Easter European Jews. As those numbers moved in, whites (as in WASPs) largely fled. Italians, Germans, Irish and some other ethnic groups remained well into 1960's when "racial tensions" began to flare up.

Scroll through ones favourite blog and learn history of many Harlem buildings. You'll find nearly all originally date from time when Harlem was largely white.

Harlem like Bedford Stuyvesant, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, and some other areas of Brooklyn is "gentrifying" because whites or anyone else with money are rediscovering what *their* ancestors left behind. Pre-war row houses and multifamily with beautiful interiors , and architecturally rich exteriors.

McKim, Mead & White's "King's Model Houses (aka "Striver's Row") is but another case in point.

To be blunt, little of Harlem was actually built or otherwise intended for blacks. What there was largely came in forms of project apartment and other low income housing that went up as part of urban renewal in 1960's through 1970's. Everything else mostly was built by whites for other whites, period.

Blacks could have bought up tons of real estate in Harlem same as anyone else rather cheaply back in day. Some did, others couldn't be bothered for various reasons. Now both are being pushed out; those who are renters and blacks who own are selling up to anyone who meets their price.

Everyone lives in the nicest safest place they can afford. "Gentrification" is a noxious smear, nobody is physically supplanting anyone because of their race. Landlords raise rents knowing they can get more. Many landlords in Harlem and other black neighborhoods are black and they don't give a shit about your delicate white concerns!

St. Nicholas avenue has dozens of beautiful homes and mansions. Many are being restored into private homes once again.

Ironically what lead in part to demise of "white" wealthy Harlem, arrival of Lenox avenue subway, now is helping with gentrification if you will.

Harlem is served by two subway lines; 8th avenue and Lenox avenue lines. That ease of access from lower Manhattan is in part what drove development of Upper West Side and points north (Harlem, Washington Heights, Inwood).

It was expansion of subway system that caused developers to over reach.

Common wisdom was that "uptown" Manhattan, as in where wealthy lived moved about ten blocks north every generation or so. You see this with Washington Square Park area, Gramercy Square Park, East mid-town, etc...

On Upper Westside developers predicted subway expansion would lead wealthy or at least well off whites to continue moving up from UWS to Harlem, etc... This did happen to a point, but all that ease of access also bought "whites" of various ethnic backgrounds (again Irish, Germans, Italians...) all seeking to escape crowded housing conditions of lower Manhattan.

When city if not nation suffered economic depression and recession developers found themselves with all this excess housing. Denied if not restricted in finding housing elsewhere in city, blacks moved into Harlem. Subway access meant they like everyone else could get to their jobs in mid-town or lower Manhattan.

Another thing to remember is blacks did have established communities largely on westside of Manhattan. Hell's Kitchen and San Juan Hill come to mind. But by early part of 20th century blacks were being pushed out of those areas and they migrated to Harlem and also parts of Bedford Stuyvesant.

Even Bed Stuy is seeing some gentrification.

People need to learn what actual "colonising" means and also that the vast majority of empires and dynasties throughout history, which all engaged in slavery, warfare, genocide, colonised and committed atrocities, were by people of colour and not white people. Give the grift a fucking rest, R3.

R115

There is no "some" about it, Bed-Stuy is seeing fuck loads of gentrification. This both new construction and people snapping up row houses.

Bedford Stuyvesant is seeing gentrification coming from two directions, those being priced out of Williamsburg, and also Clinton Hill.

Many missed boat for Clinton Hill, as they in turn also missed out on Forte Greene. Happily (or not depending upon point of view) large areas of Bedford Stuyvesant are full of brownstones, townhouses, and pre-war apartment buildings.

How can you be a white person moving into a black neighborhood without gentrifying it? Are you supposed to just let it go to shit?

If you decide to move, is it okay if you move to an even more crime-ridden area?

I'm struggling to understand why white people should give a shit about any of this. You're going to be called a racist colonizer no matter what you do. You have the original sin stain of "whiteness" so go ahead and slap on a fresh coat of paint and fix those stairs, whitey.

To be fair you had to be some kind of major visionary, or maybe gifted quite accurate clairvoyance to see Harlem of 1940's well into 1980's (or maybe even 1990's) gentrifying.

By 1970's anyone who could, black, white or Latino was getting out of Harlem. Central Harlem in particular led NYC for homicides and other violent crimes.

Truth to tell large swaths of UWS weren't that much better by 1970's either.

[quote]The second the Irish were considered white, they were given opportunities to get out of impoverished areas. Blacks were only recently given that courtesy, but are often held back without generational wealth--caused by their housing not being worth as much.

Oh my sides? You think the Irish had generational wealth? LOLOLOLOL.

"Why are white people constantly trying to take from black people?"

More important question is why are the coloureds and other minorities always pushing into white neighborhoods?

This whole "inclusion" and other recent woke nonsense is more of same; excuses for minorities to bust white neighborhoods with liberal democrats at their backs.

If as OP states black neighborhoods are so wonderful why don't coloureds remian there, especially the successful and affluent?

[Quote] But black neighborhoods are exceptionally violent and crime-ridden. You don't see that level of anarchy in other poor neighborhoods.

Because other neighborhoods aren’t that poor. Plus, those who live in black ghettos have been poor for generations. The only thing that rivals the poverty of black inner city ghettos is rural areas and yes they have tons of crime as well.

[Quote] Oh my sides? You think the Irish had generational wealth? LOLOLOLOL.

No but they were allowed to move to white neighborhoods to accrue generationally wealth within one generation

[Quote] Blacks could have bought up tons of real estate in Harlem same as anyone else rather cheaply back in day. Some did, others couldn't be bothered for various reasons.

The “various reasons” is really one reason—poverty

[quote] Why are white people constantly trying to take from black people?

That's not the motivation. The motivation is purely monetary.

The presence of black people still brings down property values. Black people collect in black neighborhoods and, being people, they make homes for themselves that are as nice as they can afford given that they are underpaid in general. Opportunistic white people who have a little more money then start buying properties as investments, one by one, knowing that once a gentrification process begins, more and wealthier white people will move in and more black people will move out. No one has ill intention, but the whole system is a racist economic system that mandates black people and families bring down property values.

I saw a black woman economist on TV who wrote a book about this. She said wealthier black people always have to make a choice between money and comfort when buying homes. If they can afford a property that they can rely on as an investment, then they must buy in a predominantly white neighborhood. It's the only way to profit from personal real estate, she says, based on in-depth research. But if they make that choice, then they know they will always feel like cultural outliers and minorities who always will be regarded as something other than just people who belong to the community, so they feel scrutinized and can never be fully comfortable in their own homes and neighborhoods and that's why many black families choose black neighborhoods, costing their families generational wealth building. I think she said there are no real exceptions to this, no examples of black neighborhood home values being equivalent to white neighborhoods no matter how large or nice the homes or the locations are, and there's no way out of the cycle, because the more black families in any given neighborhood, the lower the property values are, so black people are forced to break away from other black people if their interest is building wealth.

[Quote] Harlem largely was developed and or inhabited by whites for most of its history.

I don’t get the whole “the developers were white” narrative you keep pushing in this thread. Of course the developers were white. Who else would be able to secure the capital to develop large buildings?

If you want to go way back, Harlem was a place in the country that whites from the southern part of Manhattan could go on weekends. Hamilton’s house is still there. Do you think the slaves would have money and freedom to own weekend homes?

It’s just like straights moving into gay neighborhoods. Gay make terrible neighborhoods nice and then straight whites come and claim them as their own

[Quote] whites or anyone else with money are rediscovering what *their* ancestors left behind.

But much of this was built with slave labor

R126

*Wrong*

There were African Americans involved in Harlem real estate, going back to early part of last century.

By late 1800's and certainly into 1900's there was an established AA middle and upper class in many part of USA including NYC. Am not going to say they had things easy nor didn't face same discrimination as other blacks, but they did exist and accomplished things within their community.

It really must be said; some blacks for generations now throw up their hands and decry their lot is based upon discrimination, poverty or whatever. When actually things can often be traced directly down to laziness.

Things are still that way today. Caribbean African Americans come to USA and hit ground running. They work hard, land good jobs, their children work hard in school, etc... In a generation or two they are solid middle or upper middle class, this includes owning their own homes. Meanwhile native AA's are moaning about what they always do; "oh it's discrimination, we need quotas, set asides and other help because of years of slavery...".

History is full of surprises and we really do get an almost exclusively white version of history.

Immediately following emancipation, black people in Southern states were elected to Congress and sent to DC until laws were reversed years later and neighborhoods were redistricted.

I was home shopping a couple of months ago and I looked at a condo in a converted mansion in the Logan Circle neighborhood of DC. A sign right out front of it recounted the history of the neighborhood, and it was entirely new to me. The mansions, which mostly now are carved up into 8-10 condos that sell for $400-$600k, were built by very wealthy black families prior to the great depression. The neighborhood was something like Harlem, with very rich and highly educatex businessowners, professionals and politicians who built and owned the mansions—seemingly a lot like the Gilded Age (HBO) black character's upbringing. Then, I think around the time of the depression, the neighborhood fell out of vogue and the mansions were all abandoned, leaving the neighborhood to become a ghost town of sorts for many decades. In eventually became a poor neighborhood occupied by drug addicts until the 90s/2000s, when it was gentrified. I remember that era. I started coming out to DC for gay clubs when I was 18 (1996), and people told me to stay away from Logan Circle because it was dangerous, and then by around 2000, Logan was declared the "up-and-coming arts district," and within a year of a Whole Foods moving to the neighborhood, it was on its way to becoming one of the most expensive in the city (barring the big mansions in upper NW owned by the Obamas, Kushners et al).

Urban neighborhoods have fascinating histories. But that specific neighborhood is full of what were once mansions and they were built originally by extremely wealthy black people who have not been forgotten by history but almost no one has ever heard of.

R130 I remember that so well too. In high school, was always told to stay the fuck away from Logan Circle. Would go see plays at the Studio Theater and be nervous about the surrounding area.

Left DC after high school and was shocked a few years ago when my white sorority bitch cousin moved into a condo in Logan Circle with her republican husband.

R128 Irish & poor English?

R131 By the mid-2000s, Logan was what Dupont had been 10 years earlier. It's still 'the gayborhood,' but neighborhoods to the northeast are the ones currently being converted to a higher-rent district.

Logan Circle is the spot!

[quote] It really must be said; some blacks for generations now throw up their hands and decry their lot is based upon discrimination, poverty or whatever. When actually things can often be traced directly down to laziness.

Stop with the laziness bs. That has been use against the poor for forever when, in fact, social and political policies keep them poor--Don't give them good education, don't hire them for jobs, keep the minimum wage low, don't allow them to borrow loans, don't allow them to move to better neighborhoods, and on and on and on.

[quote] There were African Americans involved in Harlem real estate, going back to early part of last century.

Just because there were a sprinkling of blacks building and buying doesn't refute that the vast majority in the industry were white.

DataLounge used to be bitchy but progressive and not racist. What happened? Did the membership turn over during the Trump era or did the Trump era convert people into racists?

[quote] Things are still that way today. Caribbean African Americans come to USA and hit ground running. They work hard, land good jobs, their children work hard in school, etc... In a generation or two they are solid middle or upper middle class, this includes owning their own homes. Meanwhile native AA's are moaning about what they always do; "oh it's discrimination, we need quotas, set asides and other help because of years of slavery...".

There is a huge difference between what new immigrants experience and what a group living here for generations experience. New immigrants of all stripes work hard. If they can catapult into the middle class within a generation, they are set.

But to be a middle class, you must have a lower class. America has kept blacks down at the bottom for generations. Even Caribbean and African blacks sees how American blacks are treated and work hard to distance themselves from the Americans.

Interestingly, the blacks that bought in Harlem are now able to sell their apartments and houses for hefty profits, beginning generational wealth.

Some have even moved South, where their money stretches more for more comfortable lives.

Alas, that's a very small percentage of Harlem blacks, many of whom had to just move to cheaper areas, usually the Bronx

R96, culture breeds crime, not poverty.

R138, that is not why Caribbean blacks distance themselves from AAs and everyone knows it.

[quote] culture breeds crime, not poverty.

Poverty breeds the culture

[quote] that is not why Caribbean blacks distance themselves from AAs and everyone knows it.

No matter how much Caribbean blacks try to distance themselves, America will still see and treat them all the same.

America treated gays the same way--claiming that we were terrible, dirty, untrustworthy. conniving, drunks and druggies, sex crazed, etc.

We know we're not, but society forced those views of us.

We should understand that Blacks have been treated the exact same way.

[quote]The only thing that rivals the poverty of black inner city ghettos is rural areas and yes they have tons of crime as well.

Rural areas don't have as much crime. Not by a long shot.

[quote]Blacks could have bought up tons of real estate in Harlem same as anyone else rather cheaply back in day.

With all their money. Sure.

I used to drive a convertible through Harlem on Sunday nights in the summer. Vivien Leigh would ride shotgun. Good times.

[quote] Rural areas don't have as much crime. Not by a long shot.

Ratewise, crime in rural America is almost as high as in inner cities. It's an inconvenient fact for GOP politicians. They keep bringing up the crime in cities (dogwhistling: Blacks cause crime) but completely ignore the rates in rural areas.

In fact, the states with highest crime rates tend to be states with large rural areas.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

In Town vs. Country, It Turns Out That Cities Are the Safest Places to Live

R142, nonsense. A culture the doesn't value education, responsibility, accumulation of wealth, growth, self-determination, social cohesiveness, responsible parenting choices and behavior is doomed to poverty. Hundreds of millions of people have overcome poverty by valuing and living by the above.

You're not being honest, r150.

[quote]Now it’s true that the risk of homicide is greater in big cities than it is in the countryside. But the study, which analyzed 1,295,919 deaths from injury between 1999 and 2006, found the rate of dying from an unintentional injury is over 15 times higher than that of homicide for the population as a whole. Whether you live in rural areas or the city, you’re much less likely to die from a gunshot wound — either from someone else or self-inflicted — than you are in a simple accident. Especially car crashes, which make up the bulk of unintentional injury deaths — motor-vehicle-injury-related deaths occurred at a rate that is more than 1.4 times higher than the next leading cause of death.

Gun deaths in rural areas are often accidental

[quote] A culture the doesn't value education, responsibility, accumulation of wealth, growth, self-determination, social cohesiveness, responsible parenting choices and behavior is doomed to poverty.

People who are poor don't understand the value of education, can't accumulate wealth, don't favor growth, self-determination, social-cohesiveness, responsible parenting choices, etc.

It so funny listening to middle class people, who grew up around college graduates, got their library card as kids, and understood that schooling was their best shot of success go on about why those born poor don't have the same ideas.

If you don't have educated people around you, you will never understand what education can do.

[quote] Gun deaths in rural areas are often accidental

Still more proof that it's safer to live in the city

There are plenty of black millionaires in the US. Do what every other ethnic group has done and help your own.

[quote]Still more proof that it's safer to live in the city

I live in a rural area. Sorry, but as far as crime goes it sure ain't NYC. More like Mayberry R.F.D.

[quote] Do what every other ethnic group has done and help your own

Help your own? One would think that everyone is "your own,"

[quote] I live in a rural area. Sorry, but as far as crime goes it sure ain't NYC. More like Mayberry R.F.D.

Of course. NYC has 9 million people in it. All the crime will seem like it's alot, but, per capita, it's low compared to most US cities. Also, the media, much of it centered in NYC, publicizes NYC crime across the country constantly. You'd think NYC is a constant crime zone--it's not. '

Most people encounter no crime, very much like in rural areas.

Reminds me of Chicago and all the countless "projects" like cabrini green torn down and now there are business and expensive condos on these grounds where these projects were for decades and decades. So where did all of these low income people who lived in these projects go???

did they move to the very far suburbs or into the state of Indiana (ala Gary?)... If they had the money to have left I would think they would have years ago?...

[quote]People who are poor don't understand the value of education, can't accumulate wealth, don't favor growth, self-determination, social-cohesiveness, responsible parenting choices, etc.

It's really the inverse. People who don't understand the value of education, can't accumulate wealth, don't favor growth, self-determination, social-cohesiveness, responsible parenting choices, etc, are poor.

We can all point to countless stories of people who lifed themselves out of poverty with good choices. We can find equally as many stories of people who had wealth and lost everything due to poor choices.

We don't live in the middle ages. We are not illiterate peasants plowing the land of a lord in a castle, stuck in one spot for life.

Even poor people have access to books and computers. Anyone who is driven to understand anything -- finances, real estate, jobs, family planning, relationships, morality -- has a nearly infinite amount of resources.

When you need to understand something, what do you do? Maybe you look it up online. Maybe you take a book or two out of the library. Maybe you watch a YouTube video. Maybe you even ask someone if you know anyone who understands the topic.

Why do you assume people without much money are incapable of those actions? Poor does not equal stupid.

Oh baloney “poor people don’t value education”. I know SO MANY poor immigrants who do, who push their children to get good grades, to get into good schools. Jesus. Maybe you’re thinking of a subset of some poor people.

[quote]People who are poor don't understand the value of education, can't accumulate wealth, don't favor growth, self-determination, social-cohesiveness, responsible parenting choices, etc.

Oh really? What about Asians?

Rural areas are much safer.

all of this harsh condemnation of poor people and how they can just pull themselves up by the bootstraps to do better financially is truly missing the larger point: that for certain people to live decently and comfortably, other people have to live like shit. the existence of those poor people and the lower classes are why some of you are able to purchase expensive homes in the suburbs and work well-paying jobs. if all of those poor people were to suddenly start educating themselves and striving for better lives, have you thought about where that would leave you then? obviously not so shut the fuck up.

You can't compare poor immigrants to people who have been poor for generations.

New immigrants have a drive to make it in this country. They were likely people of some means in their own countries and use those same tools to progress here, mainly education.

Those who have been poor for generations have been repressed over and over, blocked from progress at ever turn. Just like the rat that keeps getting shocked in psychology experiments and simply gives up because there is seemingly no hope, the generational poor do the same.

And here come the middle class demanding why the lower class stays poor.

R165, telling people "it's not your fault, it's these evil people, it's society, it's oppression" is a good way to keep them down.

It's one thing not to shame people. Nobody should be shamed for being poor -- or morbidly obese, or addicted to drugs, or stuck in an abusive relationship, or whatever their circumstances are.

But would you tell an alcoholic or a woman in an abusive relationship, "It's not your fault. Evil forces are conspiring against you. What can you do? You're just a victim of circumstance. I can see why you feel there's no hope. After all, you're blocked at every turn and repressed over and over."

On second thought... yes, I bet you would.

[quote] telling people "it's not your fault, it's these evil people, it's society, it's oppression" is a good way to keep them down.

Telling people "You're worthless because you're poor" and then hindering access to a good education, job training and opportunities, housing, etc, is also a good way to keep them down.

[quote] But would you tell an alcoholic or a woman in an abusive relationship, "It's not your fault. Evil forces are conspiring against you. What can you do? You're just a victim of circumstance. I can see why you feel there's no hope. After all, you're blocked at every turn and repressed over and over."

Interesting how telling an alcoholic or a woman in an abusive relationship that "it's all your fault" doesn't change circumstances either. In fact, this is a common, effective tactic used by abusers themselves.

R164 conversely, then I would be helped and supported by their tax dollars

After reading this thread I’ve decided to sell my condo in Harlem. Life changing discussion. Thanks DL!

[Quote] conversely, then I would be helped and supported by their tax dollars

Why? Are you on the government dole too?

R164, I think it says something about you that you think that the people who disagree with you are not "poor people".

Fucking bourgeoisie filth.

Cary Grant (then still known as Archie Leach and his roommate (lover) George Kelly, known as “Orry-Kelly" were among many of the whites who traveled up to "gay Harlem in 1920's and 1930's.

White gays who had a think for BBC or Latino dick also went Harlem's Mount Morris Baths.

Many of the bath houses downtown weren't exactly welcoming to darker trade, so if you wanted that sort of thing, had to go where it could be found.

More...

And what gay and lesbian parties Harlem had back then...

Seneca Village was going no matter who was living there, black, white, or red with orange polka dots.

There was a strong push to create Central Park from what was quickly vanishing land in Manhattan. If supporters of CP had not prevailed real estate interests most surely would have sooner or later. Forces from both mid town east and west would have pushed right through that area on way up to Harlem.

Manhattan's street grid certainly would have had Sixth and Seventh avenues continue northward above 59th street (Central Park South). In fact as you can see from map of Manhattan street grid that is exactly what would have happened.

Using same street grid map in like one can also superimpose modern street grid over original map to see where among other things where what is now Central Park fits.

Were the blacks moved out of Seneca Village treated fairly? No. But then again many others all over city well into 1940's and beyond also were kicked off their land/out of their homes via eminent domain, and they too received little "fair" compensation.

Sadly, poor people are treated like pawns by the rich--it's just been their lot from the beginning of time.

Work like hell to not be poor, even if you have to cheat and steal to do it.

R170 = Neil Patrick Harris and husband, David Burtka

R177, the Seneca Village population of 200+ was not just black, two thirds of the population were black and one third were Irish and German immigrants. Approximately 1,600 people were displaced by the creation of CP. It wasn't just black people who were deplaced and who knows if any of them were treated "fairly" or not.

I agree, we all benefited by a group of people who had the wisdom, intelligence and foresight to create CP. Interestingly, Olmstead and Vaux went on to design Prospect Park in Brooklyn. It was a time of a lot of social tension, immigrants from very different places and different cultures were living in Brooklyn, as they do today. They deliberately built structures and view lines so people could watch each other out in "nature", with their families, eating and playing. Olmstead and Vaux hoped that the visitors to the park would see each other and their commonalities, their love of family, play, peace, and nature, thereby fostering social trust and cohesion. ,

R180

No one ever said Seneca Village area was 100% black, merely pointed out that every and any one living in that area was going to be moved regardless.

For the record Central Park was very much a work in progress well up to and past WWII. Land may have been claimed by eminent domain and people thrown out (officially), but there were squatters, shanty shacks and everything else well into 1930's.

Great Depression caused many to set up "Hoovervilles" in Central Park where much land was still barren or otherwise open space. You look at pictures taken along Fifth avenue, Central Park South, North and West, and see basically some plantings, but nothing like things look today.

For one thing soil in area was not all that wonderful, so tons of top soil had to be trucked in from New Jersey...

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R182 Thanks for posting that.

wtf, r172? I am far from bourgeoisie. my father comes from literal poverty.

R181, the clarifications about Seneca Village are in response to R45 who racialized it and portrayed what happened to Seneca Village as whitey again targeting, destroying and oppressing black folks, which is not what happened. Truth matters..

In Seneca Village all seemed to breathe freedom and peace and to make one forget the world and its sad turmoils.

The only thing you were breathing in a city in the 1850s was rotting food and piss and shit - both animal and human.

^^^and noxious air pollution from coal and wood fires, tuberculosis and God knows what else

[quote] Reminds me of Chicago and all the countless "projects" like cabrini green torn down and now there are business and expensive condos on these grounds where these projects were for decades and decades. So where did all of these low income people who lived in these projects go???

They're hanging in a chow line!

The filthy desperate poor and crime ridden East River slum locale for this movie a few years later became the UN neighborhood

Brooklyn, but still the same.

R174, how much did you pay to enter back then?

If you have a neighborhood where those people are not leaving in their maid and doorman uniforms at the end of the day to take the bus or subway home at a considerable distance, you do not have gentrification.

You have a stew of urban melange.

Neighborhoods change.

Not just poor neighborhoods either.

Fort Lee, NJ is a relatively affluent town just on the other side of the GWB

For years it was heavily Jewish, upper middle class.

Today it is mostly Korean. with a large Hispanic population as well. (Same level of affluence.)

That's not to say it is not disconcerting and often sad for long-time residents, but it's not anything that can or should be stopped.

Harlem is dangerous! Isn't it worse than Bed Stuy? Doesn't Doogie Howser live there? He can't even sell his place! It's the hood!

R174- Did someone take a shit in the vestibule?

[quote] Harlem is dangerous! Isn't it worse than Bed Stuy? Doesn't Doogie Howser live there? He can't even sell his place! It's the hood!

It's actually much much less hoody than it was. Once the poors moved to the Bronx, most of the crime moved up there with them. The area where Doogie lived is just north of Central Park. It's posh now.

NPH lived just off Fifth avenue few blocks up from 125th street. Central Parks ends at 110th, so if your definition of "just above" includes 12 or so city blocks, then guess he did live "just above".

BUMP

[quote]Nearly every two months, another church is lost.

Because nothing says “love“ like Black people in church screaming about sin and those evil homosexuals.

[quote] Has Harlem been completely gentrified?

Soon

[quote]Has Harlem been completely gentrified?

Hey, OP. You talking about my cousin Harlem?

He's stayed rough as ever. Wiping is gay and that kind of shit.

[quote]Has Harlem been completely gentrified?

Not according to my houseman, housekeeper, cook, maids and cleaning staff.

Same thing happened in South Central LA and Compton - now most residents are Latinos. Blacks moved to the Inland Empire and Lancaster.

well, the Dominicans have taking over Inwood and we know how that turned out!

If if wasn't for Dominicans, Puerto Ricans wouldn't have anyone to look down on.

Has anyone commented on housing prices in Harlem?

Are they as over priced as the rest of Manhattan?

Things are tough all over R207

Fossil fuel? Fuck'em.

[quote] On CNN, Van Jones warned about Democrats saying "weird stuff" like "Latinx" and "BIPOC," showing how disconnected they are from average Americans. "We're in danger of becoming a party of the very high and the very low," Jones said. "If you pull out the working class, you have people who are very well educated and very well off. Those people talk funny. Latinx? I've never met a Latinx. I've never met a BIPOC. This weird stuff that these highly educated people say is bizarre. Nobody talks that way at the barbershop, the nail salon, the grocery store, the community center. But that's how we talk now."

This was in R201's article

But the working class are deplorables. And they don't even eat arugula