As an NYC resident, I feel that Bloomberg has made the city a remarkably better place. Probably the most transformative effect of Bloomberg's initiatives has been making the outer boroughs appealing. Young people who might have otherwise lived elsewhere because of ridiculous Manhattan rents (~$2-$3k for a studio in downtown Manhattan!) are now flocking to neighborhoods like Bushwick and Bedford-Stuyvesant. These young people with disposable income create demand for more great restaurants, shops, and venues like the Barclay's center, all of which make the city a much more fun place to be.
It isn't all roses. The poorer residents in Bushwick and Bedford-Stuyvesant are being forced to move elsewhere as their neighborhood gentrifies. However, this is part of the typical cyclic trend: artists / poor people move into a cheap neighborhood, make it trendy, then get forced out when the rent goes up. The starving artists move to another more affordable neighborhood, and the cycle starts all over again. Trying to stop the cycle by preventing development is just delaying the inevitable. Bloomberg has simply accelerated the trend of creating more upscale neighborhoods. I can understand how someone in a less fortunate socioeconomic situation might feel differently, but it's hard to argue that the changes haven't been beneficial from an outsider's perspective.
But the neighborhood improves without its residents. The economic situation of those living there doesn't really change and they're forced to relocate to other neighborhoods with similar locations to where they were but much further away.
Bascially "we're going to make this a nice place to live, please gtfo".
It's not an argument against improving a space. It's one against improving a space at the expense of its residents.
This assumes everyone is renting which while probably true in NYC is far from universal. In other places people on fixed income have been forced out though propery taxes but it's closer to here is 100,000$ GTFO simply from the difference in propery values.
Neighbourhoods change over time and we have to be comfortable with that, but we also have to seriously consider what the long term effects of displacing residents are. If there are other obvious neighbourhoods people are able to easily move to, then that's the best case situation, but it's troubling if there aren't, and all too often I find that people hand wave at that problem and say that people will just go somewhere else, but don't seriously consider the effects of displacement.
However, this is part of the typical cyclic trend: artists / poor people move into a cheap neighborhood, make it trendy, then get forced out when the rent goes up. The starving artists move to another more affordable neighborhood, and the cycle starts all over again. Trying to stop the cycle by preventing development is just delaying the inevitable.
I partly agree, but artists move to an area partly by choice. Poor people are often born there, and then forced to move because the area has become trendy underneath their feet.
it's hard to argue that the changes haven't been beneficial from an outsider's perspective.
The city might be better off in the aggregate, but the poor people presumably ended up in other places, which are slightly worse off.
It isn't all roses. The poorer residents in Bushwick and Bedford-Stuyvesant are being forced to move elsewhere as their neighborhood gentrifies. However, this is part of the typical cyclic trend: artists / poor people move into a cheap neighborhood, make it trendy, then get forced out when the rent goes up. The starving artists move to another more affordable neighborhood, and the cycle starts all over again. Trying to stop the cycle by preventing development is just delaying the inevitable. Bloomberg has simply accelerated the trend of creating more upscale neighborhoods. I can understand how someone in a less fortunate socioeconomic situation might feel differently, but it's hard to argue that the changes haven't been beneficial from an outsider's perspective.