Capital City: Gentrification and the Real Estate State (Jacobin)

While I didn't agree with everything in this book and the author is further left on the political spectrum than most, I really appreciated the book and learned a lot. This book tackled issues that most books in this genre fail to address with sincerity, like the contradictory nature of planners representing both real estate capital and those most at risk from the hyper-investment of real estate capital. I have yet to read a better account of the realities of gentrification and the municipal planning profession. A short, quick, and hard-hitting book - highly recommend to anyone thinking about becoming an urban planner.

A great explanation of how capitalist planning has gotten us to the crisis we exist in today, and the role that so-called “neutral” urban planners have played. Much needed ideology for anyone considering the planning field or anyone working towards fixing our housing crisis through systemic change.

Pros1: This book starts out good enough....it breaks down how Gentrification arguably has roots as early as when the English men forced the native Americans out. The book then proceeds to break down 3 "gentrification" esc movements that sort of set the stage for what we have today....but after this the book gets rather problematic.2. the book cover is amazing at least for the book I got.More Cons then pros tho… 1. For one thing the author how do I put it.....he makes an explanation of something more complex then it has to be2. I'm a well....i'm very very very liberal on some issues....but other issues i'm conversative on them. But my point is that generally speaking on the issues I am liberal on I am like super liberal...for example I believe we need to not just fix the healthcare system but replace it with a single payer one. As a result...I identify as a democrat because of my extreme views on certain issues...and the fact that I side with democrats on around 60% of issues. But anyway my point is since i'm mostly democratic..and I ten to be a "radical one" at that ...you would think I wouldn't mind a book that's extreme to a degree...however one reviewer who said this author is more left leaning then most......welll lets just say that's an understatement. And this perspective caused the author to come to some conclusions that were very questionable based off even the evidence he chose to use in the book.3. The author blames planners way too much for gentrification issues and some of it comes back to what I mentioned earlier...about the author coming to the wrong conclusions. One example of this is where the author talks about how the planner isn't just looking to build nice places for people...but the planner is also trying to make a profit...and then says that based off this evidence planners are taking from us.But IDK about you but don't we all sure work at a certain job (outside of part time jobs to pay for school) to help people....but also make a profit??? so why blame the planners....blame the elite/governments over these planners that make it to where they can only make a profit if they participate in gentrification …. Also past de factor and de jure methods have proven to be the main cause of Gentrification but the author concludes government sponsored gentrification is a side problem...planners are the main problem.4. The author struggles when it comes to transitioning from a idea/point/whatever to an example...it's just a rough transition. 5. The book focuses on New York, which is a extreme example that can’t be applied everywhere.

We all know gentrification is evil. Stein does an amazing job explaining why and filling in the forces in the political economy which drive zoning changes and gentrification and ultimately ethnic cleansing. Five Stars *****

Well-written, well-researched, and thought provoking book on an incredibly relevant and important subject.

Delivered on time; product as described

This is one of the better socialist books on the topic of gentrification that I've read. The standards are fairly low, but this one provided clear arguments, and a coherent narrative, without getting (too) bogged down by intersectional concerns, and without getting sidetracked by irrelevant personal stories. It could have used more data and research to support arguments, and would have greatly benefited from extending its analysis beyond New York City, but it does a passable job with what it has. It doesn't have a lot of original thinking to offer -even the foundational premise, that cities rely on a funding scheme that gives development priority, and therefore empowers real-estate interests with government tools, which they abuse- is anything but new.I found the chapter on Trump to be a flop -but I'm not from the US, and by-default am suspicious of the objectivity of *everyone's* arguments about Trump. Everything before that was solid, and I understood the arguments, even if I didn't see enough quantitative evidence for them being presented -particularly regarding claims about the supposed profitability of 'speculator buildings' that are left empty. What socialist means by 'speculation' is rarely clear: failing to define the term as narrowly as possible made it feel like a catch-all piece of jargon that generally referred to 'market activity that I don't like or understand'.The author's understanding of the most basic principles of economics are somewhere between minimal and nonexistent: he will refer to economic terms when it is convenient for making a point, but does not demonstrate the least functional knowledge of how something so simple as supply/ demand works. Better to not use such terms at all if you cannot apply their reasoning consistently. The author is more in the strain of the 'popular socialists', who read Marx, and are embedded in a radical left-wing circle: he does not strike me as a serious market socialist (which I had been hoping for).The final chapter undermines quality heavily. He makes a case that there needs to be a separation of real-estate capital and city government power, which I think is a reasonable thing to argue for, but ends with... 'we must seize the means of production!'. He doesn't actually say that, but he might as well have. If he had scaled back his arguments, and limited his ambition, he could have reached a MUCH broader audience, and would have made a lot more progress. Praising Cuba and the CCP isn't a winning argument outside of the most narrow of left-wing circles, and despite his illusions, we've already played the Communism game: doing it again, especially without any serious consideration of past failures, such as his unsophisticated view demands, is unwise.

I8

Excellent book

The book is informing and interesting, I struggled to finished it though because the final part turns into socialism nonsense.

I’m writing this review in part because often when I have this strong a negative feeling about a book, i come back to it a while later and realise it was me missing something rather than the book.The topic of the book is how the way planning is done and how real estate capitalism (the author’s term) come together to make urban America costly and difficult for everyone except the wealthy to live in.The problem is the author then kinda stops - doesn’t really explore how to fix things (except in a broad Americans need to be more socialist kinda way - which I’d personally welcome but feels a bit weak) and most unforgivably, doesn’t seem to explore places the US could learn from, or anywhere outside the US really. What about cities like Tokyo and Berlin? What about China?It might be that the author is actually an intelligent person with something useful to say on the topic, but it seemed so buried that I couldn’t find it.

I found the chapter about Trump and his father and grandfather very good. However there was no mention throughout this book about the issue of overpopulation and climate change. Not one mention. I believe these are crucial topics when discussing land use, etc.