re: this post but I don't wanna rechost if it's discourse adjacent
As far as I can tell, the person posting is explicitly for walkability, but is just saying that pro-pedestrian infrastructure changes can go hand in hand with gentrification without specific effort.
In the Bay Area at least, I think this is unambiguously true. Looking at Oakland for example, improvements to pedestrian infrastructure pretty much always go hand in hand with the displacement of homeless populations when spaces are cleared for construction of paths on previously undeveloped or neglected ground, and then they bring an influx of gentrified people into spaces where they are more likely to encounter their marginalized neighbors and call the cops on them.
For cities with "crime problems"1, where "walkability" is one of the mating calls of the yimby2, getting gentrifiers out of their cars and onto their feet or bikes increases "public safety" concerns which can and do have violent consequences for victims of police violence.
Anywho, the answer to that problem is not to oppose pedestrian infrastructure, traffic calming, etc. (I am a huge traffic calming pervert.) I hate cars and love walkable spaces. But it is important to consider the potential unintended consequences. (Or, to be uncharitable to the urban renewal enthusiasts, the quietly intended consequences.)
-
I.e., the perception of crime due to the existence of people that white folks associate with crime.
-
See here