The image of a low-rise tenement full of low-income dwellers being torn down and replaced by a high rise condo tower for the wealthy is commonly bandied about. While this exact scenario is not currently happening here, it is a disservice to the conversation to pretend that this means that there is no pressure being placed upon the low-rent apartments. More common around here, would be rooming houses being returned to owner-occupancy, apartments over stores being converted to offices, and a general increase of rents due to demand.
Gentrification can be a huge problem, as San Francisco has discovered. Locals get priced out of their own apartments, and have to move out, due to the demand for a now-trendy neighbourhood. Long-standing businesses catering to them get replaced by middle or high-end replacements, putting financial pressure on those who remain.
It does frustrate me that the anti-Gentrification crowd is always decrying new development, nearly regardless of what it is. Realistically, I feel the best solution is to build enough new stuff for the rich people, since there's basically no stopping them. Let them buy up the new housing, leaving the existing housing stock for the existing locals, at lower prices.
Gentrification can be a huge problem, as San Francisco has discovered. Locals get priced out of their own apartments, and have to move out, due to the demand for a now-trendy neighbourhood. Long-standing businesses catering to them get replaced by middle or high-end replacements, putting financial pressure on those who remain.
It does frustrate me that the anti-Gentrification crowd is always decrying new development, nearly regardless of what it is. Realistically, I feel the best solution is to build enough new stuff for the rich people, since there's basically no stopping them. Let them buy up the new housing, leaving the existing housing stock for the existing locals, at lower prices.