Rudy v. Marxists --> is beauty for the wealthy

[Patrick Bond]

Hey, do you know that from the mid-1980s, radical poli-econ 
geographers won this debate quite convincingly over previously-
dominant cultural geographers -- essentially arguing that 
gentrification is a movement of capital first, then people, not the 
other way 'round (and demonstrating this through "rent gap" 
analysis, documenting redlining and other disinvestment 
processes, and tracking tax-arrear payments as a proxy for 
renewed speculative interest in blocks whose values had hit bottom 
prior to the reinvestment cycle) -- but just looking this morning at 
Neil Smith's very convincing The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification 
and the Revanchist City (Routledge 1996), I don't understand why 
that ex-Bal'morian, ex-Trot used to tear the Mercedes hood 
ornaments off cars parked in his target 'hoods, if his theory was 
true. Takes structure plus struggle, I guess. In Vancouver at a 
geographers' conference in 1997, Neil led the spray-painting team 
for the downtown fieldtrip; they had this excellent symbol of 
resistance borrowed from the Tompkins Square Park riot: a martini 
cocktail glass upside down with little drops coming out: party's 
over, yuppies, go 'way.

On 21 Dec 99, at 13:12, Chuck0 wrote:
> gcf at panix.com wrote:
> > I think we need to remember that the "yuppies" are themselves
> > being driven out of other neighborhoods by yet richer
> > people.  At least, that's what's been happening in New York
> > City.  One of the reasons erstwhile slums like the Lower
> > East Side, Williamsburg, and Harlem suddenly begin to appear
> > desirable is that the neighborhoods the somewhat-better-off
> > used to occupy are no longer available to them.  When I was
> > a boy, the Lower East Side was considered too poorly served
> > by police, public transit and other services to be desirable
> > for a young Wall Street striver, but if now the question is
> > the Lower East Side or Edison, New Jersey, the answer is
> > clear, unless the striver is truly fond of the vacancies of
> > suburban culture.
> That's certainly a factor. Cities undergo change over time, which can be
> good, and can be bad. That is the organic nature of the city. I guess I
> foolishly wish to see a day when people decide these things for
> non-economic reasons.
> The richer driving the less rich out is becoming a problem here in D.C.
> too. Already Connecticut Ave. and Dupont Circle are starting to become
> more upscale. Record stores and vegetarian cafes go out of business
> because they can't afford the rents, and Brooks Brothers, Godiva, and
> that gay wine cellar open up.
> > This means that scorched-earth tactics will probably not
> > succeed in the end -- the "enemy" has an infinitude of
> > troops to send against it, and they'll keep on coming,
> > people not so different from the people they're kicking out,
> > and not so differently motivated.  (Hence the humor in the
> > Suck article linked from the Mission Yuppie Eradication
> > Project, http://www.suck.com/daily/99/07/07/index.html .)
> > Really, what's wrong with a pretty little boutique?  It's not
> > its prettiness but the savage rent conceded to the landlord,
> > who himself is no doubt enslaved to mortgages, taxes,
> > insurance, and the inflated expenses of his own dog-eat-dog
> > life.
> > People become crazed about property values because they
> > themselves are under attack.  We need to get everybody
> > out.  Not that some tactical holding actions may not be
> > a good thing until we can get something bigger going.
> We'll see. The D.C. anarchists are opening a new infoshop next year in a
> neighborhood that is still in the fringe are of gentrification. Still, a
> multi-billion dollar convention center is being built several blocks
> away, so we'll see what happens. I'm just praying for an economic
> slowdown.
>