# data[].attributes.body
The transforming of cities through gentrification begins with the white educated working class moving into minorities community. Property values rise causing a displacement of minorities. Cities in the beginning were conceptualized as landscapes of opportunity and where the people and government would pull together for a common good. Once everyday resources were views as government responsibility have been handed to outsiders whose grasp and concern for the  on the ground life in a city is limited.  Now a small business are forced to compete with big businesses, For-profited chase these urbanizes with upscale housing and creative marketing campaigns, transforming neighborhoods into "livable" urban nooks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Urban Renewal and Gentrification before and after

# data[].attributes.headline
#20 What economic factors does Dy Zarsadiaz identify as the main drivers of gentrification?

# data[].attributes.subject
#20 What economic factors does Dy Zarsadiaz identify as the main drivers of gentrification?

# data[].attributes.body
Gentrification starts with educated middle income moving into a predominantly working class community for a great deal. Minorities are displaced when these people keep arriving because property values rise and many cant afford it. Small companies also struggle because they have to compete with the big, well known companies in many cases taking them out of business.

# data[].attributes.headline
#21 What historical change in American attitudes does Dy Zarsadiaz identify as the ultimate cause of gentrification? 

# data[].attributes.subject
#21 What historical change in American attitudes does Dy Zarsadiaz identify as the ultimate cause of gentrification? 

# data[].attributes.body
When Boston, Chicago, and New York rose to prominence in the late in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, cities were conceptualized as landscapes of innovation, opportunity, and heterogeneity, where people and government pulled together for the common good.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SO...remember how I wrote about the above space in downtown SanTana, and that the rumor was it was going to be a bistro of sorts? The cat is out of the bag-sort of. The name of the restaurant will be Floral Park Cafe, and all that they'll say right now is that it'll be a "new American bistro."

]

Its website and Facebook pages are currently empty, and a search of LLC filings obtained by the Weekly reveal only that the owners used Legalzoom.com to register their business-hooray for the Internet. Oh, and the phone number currently attached to them is an area code 917-and the name now makes sense, as Floral Park is a village on Long Island in addition to the insufferable SanTana neighborhood. Oh, no: is SanTana going to turn into the next Williamsburg? Floral Park Cafe folks: just make great food, and all is forgiven...
Follow Stick a Fork In It on Twitter @ocweeklyfood or on Facebook! And don't forget to download our free Best Of App here!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Floral Park Cafe, New Bistro, to Open in Downtown Santa Ana - OC Weekly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SO...remember how I wrote about the above space in downtown SanTana, and that the rumor was it was going to be a bistro of sorts? The cat is out of the bag-sort of. The name of the restaurant will be Floral Park Cafe, and all that they'll say right now is that it'll be a ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To live in a city is to watch it change, sometimes quickly and in troubling ways. These changes, more often than not, are the product of decisions by city planners on which longtime residents often have little input or sway. This process is usually referred to with a commonly used term: gentrification. But there is no single answer to the questions of what gentrification really means, what causes it, who controls it, and how it actually changes neighborhoods and the people who live in them.

How to Kill a City: Gentrification, Inequality, and the Fight for the Neighborhood, a new book by the journalist Peter Moskowitz, brings some much-needed clarity to thinking about a slippery concept. "While urban renewal, the suburbanization of cities, and other forms of capital creation are relatively easy to spot (a highway built through a neighborhood is a relatively obvious event), gentrification is more discreet, dispersed, and hands-off," he writes. Moskowitz adds to the growing canon aimed at understanding and explaining the process of gentrification, and he not so subtly suggests that while gentrification naturally brings some improvements to a city,including more people and money, it also frequently kills some cultural traditions and diversity, the precise characteristics that make cities so dynamic and desirable in the first place.

Moskowitz tells of how gentrification has swept through some of America's biggest cities, writing case studies of Detroit, San Francisco, New York, and post-Katrina New Orleans. In each city, there are specific problems and circumstances that helped the process along, but it's striking how similar the choices made by politicians, business leaders, and developers and their effect on poor really are across the country. Gentrification, in each of these cities, dismantles and displaces existing neighborhoods and communities in order to make way for new residents who are mostly whiter, and always richer, than those who predate them. And the same choices seem to be made again and again.

While Moskowitz includes the important stories of those who called a neighborhood home long before coffee shops and luxury condos appeared, it's his outline of the systemic process of displacement that is the most devastating. He convincingly shows how the choices that a city and its government make in the name of a booming economy assign value to some residents and not others: From choices on where and how to fund affordable housing, to invest in public schools, to support new local businesses, but not old ones, the process that goes by the name "revitalization" is often something more pernicious.

In How to Kill a City' s section on New Orleans, Moskowitz highlights the uneven treatment of poor neighborhoods and rich ones in the post-Katrina period, noting that some who saw a need for economic revitalization have said that the storm cleared out some of the less desirable neighborhoods, leaving room for them to be rebuilt without as much concentrated poverty and blight. But they were also being rebuilt more slowly and in a way that ultimately left their previous residents adrift. On top of that, Moskowitz writes, changes to the city's basic services, particularly its school system, disadvantaged poorer families, who were burdened by undue amounts of paperwork. The city also dismantled the teacher's union, which had helped build part of New Orleans's black middle class.

In his chronicle of Detroit, Moskowitz shows how gentrification differs in a city that is steadily emptying out because of economic hardship rather than a natural disaster. He notes that in a 2010 attempt to recast the city as an urban center on the rise, rather than one facing a staggering financial failure, the city's mayor, Dave Bing, proposed shrinking the boundaries of Detroit in order to focus on the downtown area while cutting out the struggling outer ring. The idea, though it was shot down, has had long-lasting implications for how people conceptualize the city, Moskowitz argues, with developers, city planners, and corporations focusing most of their energy and money on a relatively small section of it. "The new Detroit is now a nearly closed loop," he writes, "It is possible to live in this new Detroit and essentially never set foot in the old one." And after filing for bankruptcy, the city's government has had less power to plot out the city's future, leaving it in the hands of developers and nonprofits, who may still have a somewhat limited view of what qualifies as Detroit.

San Francisco and New York, in many ways, have problems and opportunities that are the opposite of Detroit's. Instead of wanting to gin up economic growth in concentrated areas, residents there are struggling to contain it. As San Francisco becomes a hub for bigger, richer companies and their employees, the displacement of longtime residents has vastly outpaced any efforts at maintaining or creating affordable housing in the city. And despite stable economies, liberal leanings, and high involvement in municipal politics in both New York and San Francisco, policies that could potentially help poorer residents have been much slower to come and less robust than the influx of new private capital that devours neighborhoods and displaces residents. In just about every city Moskowitz examines, he finds that choices by city and state governments limited the creation of affordable housing and changed public-housing policies, giving poorer residents little refuge in increasingly expensive cities.

Ultimately, Moskowitz says that a big part of the problem when it comes to the unremitting pace of gentrification is that it is a process that often involves the investments and decisions of the private entities, including developers and big corporations, that decide to set up shop in new neighborhoods. In some ways, that's great for areas that are floundering, but when city leaders become too reliant on the plans and dollars of the private sector, the people who had been living and working in these neighborhoods all along have no one to look out for them and the lives they've built. Private organizations have different interests and responsibilities when it comes to making plans to spruce up a neighborhood. And that can mean that their investments don't happen an egalitarian manner, or benefit a diverse group of residents.

Regarding this point, Moskowitz writes:

Believing that hipsters can reverse the consequences of late-stage capitalism is a more attractive thought for city planners in cash-strapped cities than realizing that many American cities are, for now, screwed thanks to postindustrial decline and growing inequality. Gentrification may provide a new tax base, but it also reshapes what cities are, turning them into explicit supporters of inequality, reliant on it to self-fund, yet still unable to meet the needs of their poor. A real solution to the economics of American cities would require more work-more taxes, more laws, more intervention from the federal government. Those things are hard. Gentrification is easy.

Moskowitz says that while gentrification is a problem in just about every developed country in the world, its propensity to become a full-blown crisis in American cities has a lot to do with insufficient housing regulation. "In nearly every other industrialized nation besides the United States, there is near-consensus that purely private land markets will not meet the needs of the poor, and so measures have been taken to ensure that at least some land remains off the market or subject to regulations that make it affordable."

And in that vein, Moskowitz has some ideas for how to lessen the sting of gentrification: expanding and protecting access to public lands and giving residents more of a voice in the city via community boards and similar organizations, to name two possibilities. Moskowitz also wants cities to heavily regulate housing and to raise taxes, wages, and spending on the poor. He doesn't expect that all, or most, of these plans will come to fruition. But implementing any of them, he writes, would constitute progress.
Related Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Steady Destruction of America's Cities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To live in a city is to watch it change, sometimes quickly and in troubling ways. These changes, more often than not, are the product of decisions by city planners on which longtime residents often have little input or sway. This process is usually referred to with a commonly used term: gentrification.