Here is a demographic few seem to be paying attention to except maybe "developers."

[kelliekat44]

In major cities all across the nation, the huge segments of property owned or rented by blacks and low income whites is being gobbled up by developers who are either building new or renovating old buildings right in or near the big cities. The price tags are so high on these newly built or renovated properties that few, if any, of the former residents will be able to move back to their old neighborhoods. I know this has been going on for some time and the dynamic used to be whites fleeing to suburbs and minorities moving into the cities. Now it is reversing....but here is the really new thing about it. Most of those buying in the cities are young singles OR young couples with FAMILIES...babies...children. And they seem to love it. And most of the couples are DO NOT speak English as a first language...most are from EU, Balkans, and Asian countries.

One of the main attractions is that sprawling city shopping areas are also being changed into neighborhood venues with everything conveniently located for the new neighborhoods. "City" is becoming more attractive as long-suffering commutes are packing highways to the burbs and rural locations. AND their seems to be less worry about flooding, fires, and other natural disasters. The problem I see is that has municipalities grab up these properties for taxes and other specious arguments, generations of poor and minority are being forced into places they can't afford or can't even get. The homeless rate among these people is increasing steadily. I do see one positive thing in the county where I live. And that is, many low income families are living among these new neighbors (main-streamed) because developers were forced to include accommodations for a certain number of low income families..in some cases even having to build new housing projects nearby, keeping them in the neighborhood.

Is this a new wave of immigrants that the GOP ignore? Are these folks liberal, conservative, or progressive? I don't know. I just see them everywhere in the neighborhood. Time will tell.

[IrishAyes]

1. Gentrification is a double edged sword alright.

What can be done? I don't know, except some relief offered by the required low-income housing. Doesn't make it right, though. Sticky wicket at best.

[FarCenter]

2. US cities have poor people in the city due to cheap energy and a single building cycle.

In Europe, with high energy prices and cities that have been rebuilt multiple times, the rich people live in the city center and poor people live in some of the suburbs. For example, see Paris.

Energy was cheap in the US and this enabled the development of the car commuting culture as people built homes farther and farther away from factories and offices in the city center. Later, the factories and offices tended to also move to "edge cities".

This evolution has only occurred once for most US cities. For example, just after WW II, Minneapolis only extended to about its current southern boundary. Subsequently, Richfield, Bloomington, and Apple Valley have been built as Cedar Avenue and I-35 provided commuting corridors to the south. Housing nearest the downtown aged and wealthier citizens moved out as areas became more run down.

Gentrification is the beginning of a second wave of rebuilding and development, as expensive housing is built or rehabbed in the city center. Poor inhabitants will be forced to migrate outwards into the next ring of run down housing, and the cycle of rebuilding will continue.

Meanwhile, energy prices are going to rise, so this cycle is likely to be permanent, with US cities evolving towards the European settlement pattern, with the upper class downtown, and the middle class and poor in separate sectors around the periphery.