Simply displacing a population can make an area more wealthy but it does little for the overall population.

So, I don’t think we care about land here but rather people.

> but it does little for the overall population.

Not sure about that.

It just makes the poor people move elsewhere, they are still around.

Specific to London but there were a lot of working class home owners who bought under the right to buy schenlme who have benefited hugely from gentrification (not just from increased home prices but from lower crime, better schools etc).

Also a lot of non-market housing being rented, all those people also benefit.

Sure a small percentage of displaced people benefit significantly. That’s offset by those who simply see higher rent then get forced to relocate to a less desirable location further from work / family/ etc.

Poor areas have few people with the knowledge/ resources to really leverage gentrification which is why they are living in poorer neighborhoods to begin with. So the average outcome may be a slight improvement due to the major winners, but the median outcome is likely a net loss.

The people who move in and out aren't just shuffling seats. They may be moving in because of their increased ability to exercise that position in society. The consequence may be a center of regional productivity and true national gain. In other words, you don't get a Bay Area unless a lot of tech and business types mingle together.

One could argue that the money flowing into Hackney was largely from the London media/finance elite who probably were made 2X more productive by IT and City deregulation. The result was Hackney's gentrification.

But gentrification, is not the same as a community leveling up. The former provides an influx of new residents with money to spend in the community. The latter creates new opportunities for the existing residents within the community.

>30 years ago in London, you'd of said the same thing about places like Hackney...[and] today it houses some of the most desired and valuable real estate

are you saying that gentrification of Hackney did not simply entail wealthier people moving in and displacing the local population, but rather soaring incomes for the people who lived there?

Emphasis on 'to a certain extent' :)

Educational outcomes need to be improved yesterday, no disagreement on that.

There's some displacement, yes. However anyone who isn't in privately rented accommodation would be choosing to leave, perhaps even with some decent money from selling their house.

Many people stay, if you'd like proof, take a walk down to hackney.

A "gentrified" community will involve higher incomes for those non-tradable services that have to be provided locally and can't simply be outsourced to somewhere else. So it's both.

(This is in addition to the high productivity that's driving the gentrification in the first place, which will often result in increased opportunity in that very sector - but that's not always very relevant, especially in the short term.)

I find this a strange reasoning. When a city becomes more economically viable everyone benefits.

The poor people in Amsterdam get benefits paid for by the rich.