People refusing to stay in the locality and socioeconomic conditions of their birth place, and instead exploring the world and learning about its people, is gentrification now?

The amount of NYC-born privilege being waved around in this thread is astounding.

I have paid, in many ways, for NYC my whole life. It's my city too, even though I wasn't born there. I identify with its culture. I know its geography and social norms. I play its open mics to enthusiastic audiences of a size that I simply can't reach upstate.

Why do you think that people who are born in NYC are entitled to these things to the exclusion of the rest of us?

I'd say that isn't the gentrification, but the fact that a wealth individual can "redevelop" a neighborhood, raising the rents of many less fortunate people who have lived there their entire lives.

Rent Stab/Control exists for a reason, had those generations of people not been there, NYC wouldn't be what it is today. But when the entire neighborhood becomes too expensive because of landlords preferring to run hotels, and the only apartment stock that is affordable is the failing NYCHA properties, then I would consider this a gentrification.

Why are you getting so defensive? I agree with you, but that doesn't mean it's not a type of gentrification.

>Why do you think that people who are born in NYC are entitled to these things to the exclusion of the rest of us?

Did I say that? Just because I noted it was gentrification doesn't mean you can treat me like a straw-man punching bag.

If we have to make the choice I think it is reasonable to privilege the concerns of people who live in a place year-round over those visiting for a week.

Let's say a 400 square mile area of land can only accommodate 10 million people, but that 2 billion would prefer to live there if they could, because it is one of the nicest localities in the world.

Why have 10 million lucky individuals get year round access to it, rather than giving 1 billion people 3-4 days each to visit it?

Because the alternative is not a city but a city-sized theme park.

Maybe the most desirable locations on Earth should be theme parks that a billion people can visit, rather than gated mega-communities for ten million wealthy/lucky long-term residents.

Maybe one day the typical life will consist of visiting a different theme-park-like city every few days, and people will identify with their planet rather than a few hundred square miles that's designated as their city of residence.

Well I wonder who is going to keep the cities running then.

This reminds me of the statist trope, "who will build the roads?!"