"anti-gentrification sentiment is interesting because it never stops."
Excactly! Where does one draw the line? Usually one draws the line so that protection includes himself. For me, it's a moral problem as well, because this line-drwaring scales up to elections that justify way too much government regulation. From my perspective anti-gentrification sentiment is almost always misplaced.
"By contrast, NIMBYism is more of a middle-age and old person's thing."
Maybe the difference is also, that NIMBY-ians engage proactivly against changes (they know that where they live is already good), where as anti-gentrificationists seem to be more reactionary (not anybody expected sudden price rises to occur).
Where I connect NIMBY- and anti-gentrification-sentiments is that one want's prohibit things to change (anti-immigration, trade restrictions). All of those sentiments are understandable. But prohibiting things from change via legislation tends to be an unfair deal for future generations. The change I don't want to happen is an opportunity that for many will never occur.
"to expect neighborhoods to stay the same on the time scale of decades is unrealistic."
Absolutely. In Hamburg there are restrictions on building heights. The most stupid one is, that in downtown 'no bulding should block the view of the churches'. It's the one place in Hamburg, where land is so expensive that buildings need to rise in height if you want affordable rent prices. But the buildings can't rise, so no one lives there anymore. Thus the churches have lost their communities and downtown is a dead place after 8pm. Just one example where the attitude of "conserving culture" leads to killing it off.
Excactly! Where does one draw the line? Usually one draws the line so that protection includes himself. For me, it's a moral problem as well, because this line-drwaring scales up to elections that justify way too much government regulation. From my perspective anti-gentrification sentiment is almost always misplaced.
"By contrast, NIMBYism is more of a middle-age and old person's thing."
Maybe the difference is also, that NIMBY-ians engage proactivly against changes (they know that where they live is already good), where as anti-gentrificationists seem to be more reactionary (not anybody expected sudden price rises to occur).
Where I connect NIMBY- and anti-gentrification-sentiments is that one want's prohibit things to change (anti-immigration, trade restrictions). All of those sentiments are understandable. But prohibiting things from change via legislation tends to be an unfair deal for future generations. The change I don't want to happen is an opportunity that for many will never occur.
"to expect neighborhoods to stay the same on the time scale of decades is unrealistic."
Absolutely. In Hamburg there are restrictions on building heights. The most stupid one is, that in downtown 'no bulding should block the view of the churches'. It's the one place in Hamburg, where land is so expensive that buildings need to rise in height if you want affordable rent prices. But the buildings can't rise, so no one lives there anymore. Thus the churches have lost their communities and downtown is a dead place after 8pm. Just one example where the attitude of "conserving culture" leads to killing it off.
Update:
Took a while for me to find it, but to prove that anti-gentrification really never stops, take st.tropez/côte d'azur france, where the millionaires don't wan't the billionaires to come in http://www.amb-cotedazur.com/Did-you-know/rich-russians-are-...