alt Hacker NewsThere seems a bit of inner conflict in what you're saying. If retailers "revitalizing a neighborhood" leads indirectly to them getting priced out due to rising land values, isn't it also true that poor people living in the neighborhood get priced out at the same time? Is it a good or bad thing to make a neighborhood more hip, is the retailer a hero or a villain?
Replies
Long term residents may own their properties, protecting them from rent increases and letting them share in the wealth should they sell up and move.
For various reasons it’s extremely rare for retail businesses to own the buildings they operate out of.
A hero. It's pretty simple. No need to complicate things.
Just like saving a (healthy) life is a good thing, even if you can spin some stories about the dignity of death or whatever.
Depends whether or not the city allows other neighbourhoods to exist/grow/change. If the total floorspace in the city is fixed in regulations, then ofc anything done to improve conditions will hurt people on the bottom. The people who can afford a "revitalized neighbourhood" would happily live in brand new housing built on top of land in the nearby mansion district, displacing no one, but city planners do not allow that - new apartments can only be added to the city stock by destroying old ones, new store floorspace can only be added by destroying old etc. This forces everyone to play musical chairs with too few chairs and the only winners are those who own the chairs.