I'm quite surprised at people here suggesting that it's okay to displace the poor. It's not. Change, process and improvement are most effective when they take everyone along for the ride. Everyone's seen Gataca, right?

I'm sure there are plenty of alternatives to the current gentrification model. Plenty of low-cost housing, for one. Sensitivity from local councils who take a long-term view and try to protect local business, for another. A complex discussion, I don't have all the answers.

BTW, apartment that I live in right now is already below the market, and if the landlord decides to adjust the price next year when my contract expires, I'll have to move. I don't feel that I'm privileged to some special treatment just because I already live here though: free market is what it is.

Because there are costs involved with relocating, which the former aren't being given any choice about. Finding a new place to live and moving there involves a lot of time, effort and stress. Not to mention any friends and family they're now less able to keep in touch with.

1) The people being priced out are often the people that made the neighborhood nicer to live in. Developers don't improve neighborhoods, people do. And these people are usually the first to go when developments move in and drive up the cost, because they are often the most vulnerable to the price increases. (Your artists, musicians, students, young families, folks on shoestring budgets opening hipster coffee shops and restaurants, etc)

2) It's not so much that all these people feel like they deserve to live in this one particular nice place. You don't see people complaining that they can't live in gated communities or mansions. It's that nearly every lower-class or middle-class urban place that was even slightly nice to live in is rapidly becoming "rich-people-only". Where does that end?

Are middle class people eventually going to economically banned from all urban environments nationwide? Because that's the trajectory we're currently headed in, unless some massive correction happens.

> why people who already live somewhere (but rent and don't own)

Renters are highest risk, but it's not just renters who get displaced. Property owners can also get displaced through gentrification -- owning property does not make someone immune to this problem

Anyone who has lived in a typical urban core from the 90s knows that poor neighborhoods don't just start having cleaner streets, more shops and services out of the blue displacing liquor stores and repair shops and weeds.

But eh — those guys actually have to move _in_ to gentrification to happen. And before they move in, it's usually really ordinary poor people moving out: because, believe it or not, "starving" liberal art major is not as poor as an illegal immigrant family with 5 kids.

> It's that nearly every lower-class or middle-class urban place that was even slightly nice to live in is rapidly becoming "rich-people-only". Where does that end?

I'm not from US, so I may not be seeing what you're talking about exactly, but you're talking about late-stage gentrifying here. But early stage gentrifying is the opposite: it makes poor, awful areas into those nice middle-class areas to begin with. So by the time you (we're talking about low-middle class, right?) have to move out when the area is full of elite condos, there's another neighbourhood that just became trendy enough for you to move it.

> Property owners can also get displaced through gentrification -- owning property does not make someone immune to this problem

Don't see a real difference here: it's all just free market mechanisms regulating situations where a lot of different people compete for the same thing.

Some people live in tight knit communities. If they are forced out then they lose a massive piece of their life that is not easily replaced.

Different cultures will obviously have different views regarding communities and societies at large.