There is no doubt a negative connotation to gentrification, as it is one way outsiders are infiltrating the homes of poorer residents in various neighborhoods and changing it to fit their tastes. Even if the intentions are good, too many a time neighborhoods are completely revamped without considering the needs of its inhabitants. At least, that was what I thought. In “There Goes the Hood”, I was taken aback by the amount of positive reactions, but I could now understand why. The “food deserts” in these neighborhoods were very interesting to learn about, and the immediate satisfaction the commercialization of new businesses brought seemed to turned around neighborhoods. I found it particularly interesting when gentrification was described as both a “villain and knight in shining armor”. While some neighborhoods were prospering as a result of initiatives such as this, there were cases that people felt mistreated in their own communities. Something as simple as a outrageously costly new restaurant is just one example, and I believe this fear is justified. Many are struggling to stay in their homes with rent control as it is. The article “Priced Out of a Childhood Home” was simply disappointing to read, for while neighborhoods changed drastically around them, sometimes for the better, what was the cost? While there is some compensation for its long-term residents in form of selling their homes for massive profit, they should not feel a external need to move out. We must focus our attention on offering power to these residents in shaping their communities.