This is VICE, so grain of salt and whatnot, and it's not the best-written or thought out article, but they do have a good point. Massive amounts of obvious things aren't being taken care of, like developing land, or creating incentive for developing land, while a rather unnecessary upper-middle to wealthy class store is created. I'd say it's too early to call it gentrification, but I think we all know that's eventually what's going to happen. It's prime for that scene creation, and Michigan does have a large swath of young people to popularize it.
I disagree that they have a point. I think this article is such a piece of shit that I'm hesitant to even give it a comment. Vice's snarky bullshit "journalism" is terrible in general, and this piece is no different. What would the author prefer, that people who live in Detroit continue to not have decent options from which to purchase food? Should Whole Foods be ashamed because they can serve community needs and also make a profit (you know, what businesses are supposed to do in the best case scenario)? I've been to Mission, Silver Lake and Brooklyn, and Detroit is nothing like any of them (and each is different from the others, too). Why is it that so many people can't stand groups of people who try to improve their homes? I'll never understand that. Detroit is a cheap place to live so people moved in. Then those people thought, "Wow, this place could use some art." So they made some. Then some other people thought, "You know, maybe a coffee shop would do well with all these artists around..." And so on. There's no such thing as "gentrification" when it's viewed in those terms (that is, as a spontaneous and organic event, which, um, didn't start last June when Whole Foods opened). Gentrification is simple supply and demand. And it's good for the overwhelming majority of people to boot. Of course some people can't afford the rent anymore. Big deal. Markets change. That's the whole point of a dynamic economy. Those people can find shitty housing elsewhere not too far away. Detroit, if it is to become a viable city again, certainly isn't going to do so overnight. One thing happens and then the next thing happens, and that's all that can happen. Vice whining in their holier-than-thou bullshit crybaby tone will do nothing to help, and I wish (as I wish every time I read one of their "articles" on pretty much any topic) that they would shut the fuck up or perhaps try to do something constructive. Sorry, rant over now.
Horrible article, but some of the comments were great. In response to someone asking who the author was: Other than a few witty comments from people that all agreed it was a steaming pile of poo, it's a pretty piss-pore piece of pseudo journalism.What he is not is a good journalist...that story had zero point other than taking up space...ah!!! Maybe he was contributing in his own little way to filling the vast vacancies in the city he referred to...one shitty article at a time. I wonder how many Megabytes fit in a square acre?
The things about Detroit in particular were moronic, but the broader point about gentrification bothers me a lot more. Am I supposed to feel like a racist, because I am white and make a decent salary, while many of my neighbors are poor and black? What's the alternative (and what anti-gentrification types clearly have implicit in their arguments)? That we stay in the suburbs, because the cities belong to the blacks now? That's the racist way of looking at things. So many of the whole metro areas problems boil down to the de facto segregation that exists here. So why is desegregating after all these decades a bad thing? The only thing that can save Detroit (or any other severe ghettoized area) are jobs and schools. The only way to improve the prospects of either of those is to (dramatically) increase tax receipts. I wish these people would consider what they're saying before they speak so as to spare us their half baked thoughts. I feel dumber for having read it. Sorry, rant actually over now, I swear (unless I think of something else to say).
I mostly agree with you on the article. I don't think gentrification is really viewed as an issue of "this is a terrible thing and you should feel awful" so much as a "this is a very grey area issue that has no easy solution and certainly isn't malicious." Of course areas should strive to improve and have more money flowing through them, but it does push out people who have very little means to move somewhere else or somewhere to go, and there increasingly few places overall for them to go. You most certainly should not feel guilty about being well established or for going somewhere that you desire to be and is within your ability to live. It's similar to when sexism is discussed and they say 'men are the problem', it refers to the institution, not the individuals.