All across the western world’s urban areas the signs are present. The new condominiums erected where tenement housing recently stood, manicured trees and eye-catching flowers replacing yellow weeds overnight, and the opening of the neighborhood’s first Starbucks can only add up to one outcome: the middle-class white invasion is coming to oust the poor and the minorities (Kirkland, 18). At least, this is the mythic baggage summoned when the word “gentrification” is uttered. But is the narrative true? How does the reinvestment of gentrifying neighborhoods actually affect the poor and the racial minorities who call them home?
British sociologist Ruth Glass invented the term “gentrification” in 1964 as a reaction to the trend of downtrodden London properties being purchased by the upper middle-class, the “gentry” (Wharton, 0). The word was snarky and carried the full freight of Glass’ misgivings regarding the changes she saw happening to these neighborhoods and what seemed to her to be a new form of colonization. Some have dismissed her concerns as unnecessary and ignorant of the changes that inevitably come over time to every neighborhood. But Glass is not the only scholar to ever draw the comparison of this urban renewal process to earlier resettlements of territories with underutilized assets by an outside group who then manages these assets for their own gain. Professor Jonathan L. Wharton points out the similarity when he writes “both gentrification and colonialism require an economically empowered few to oversee an operation to economically and politically displace one group for another, while achieving financial gain and political power” (Wharton, 1). This simple statement quickly gets to the heart of the matter, for gentrification is all about money, power, property, and the perceived unequal redistribution thereof. How does this come about?
Wharton points to an “urban malaise” that sets in some time before gentrification, often referred to as “disinvestment” by other sources (3). This malaise is the downward spiral of inner-city factors that co-contribute to each other: the movement of the middle class and their jobs to the suburbs, the de facto segregation of urban neighborhoods by racial zoning, rising unemployment rates, and ever-dropping tax revenues to name a few (2). These lead to gangs, drugs, and the inability of cities to fund necessary programs and services for their inner cities (3). Often, cities have successfully handed these blighted districts over to the shepherding of developers and other investors (colonizers) in their attempts to pander to a new breed of resident, a resident with buying power and disposable income (the settlers). The young, urban professional, or “yuppie”, is a staple of the gentrifying neighborhood: college educated, single or at least childless, and nearly always white (4). Somewhere amid the developers’ negotiations for tax breaks and the promise to officials and investors of a heartier civic life, the needs of the original residents are put aside like those of a native populace when colonizers come to stake their claim.
At first glance, the improvements can seem to be a boon to all members of a revitalizing neighborhood. Quoting research on gentrification in Columbus, Ohio, Elizabeth Kirkland notes that increased police presence and enforcement of laws in collaboration with new residents helped to prune an area into a seemingly ideal community which, while certainly a blessing, was an opportunity not given to the original inhabitants before the “new people” (whites) came (Kirkland, 23). The author also lists several underhanded means that have been used to drive out the pre-existing community including arson, harassment, threats, even craftier capitalistic means like down-zoning in order to make property values plummet, forcing landlords to sell, and sell low (23). Usually, these gentrifying forces are seen as targeting neighborhoods and properties largely inhabited by minorities, which is the reason the term gentrification is not always welcomed by the areas to which it is applied. The influx of middle-class whites to inner-city neighborhoods is often read as the backswing of the pendulum that triggered the “White Flight” to the suburbs in the mid-twentieth century, but with the added compounding effect of displacing minority populations who are gradually priced out, lowering their quality of life (Wharton, 1-5). Many residents attempt to combat this in a number of ways, some more successfully than others.
In a report by the Urban Institute, six case studies of gentrifying communities in early, middle and late stages of the process were examined, selected for the efforts the original inhabitants of these neighborhoods had undertaken to avoid the displacement that gives gentrification such a bad reputation (Levy, 10). The methods are varied, from the actual production of new affordable housing units to infill development of vacant lots at reduced prices (10). In Bartlett Park, a “troubled” neighborhood bordered by a university, museums, and new industrial parks in St. Petersburg, Florida, the signs of an impending gentrification are already present (13). Property values are beginning to climb, and the new real estate developments are priced higher than their current residents can afford, attracting whites both young and old to this predominantly black community (12). One method of resident retention concerned civic leaders are utilizing in Bartlett Park is housing rehabilitation, simple repairs and necessary upgrades in older owner-occupied homes that raise property values, provided by federal grants and local nonprofit programs. Infill development through the city’s sale of vacant lots to nonprofits at a low price has led to over one hundred houses made available for families with low incomes through assisted purchasing, but in an area with over 3,000 vacant lots selling cheap the competition for property has already heated up to fever pitch (14).
Levy’s study also highlights the tactics used by communities where gentrification has already taken root, like the Figueroa Corridor in Los Angeles, California (Levy, 43). This rapidly changing 40 block, older Latino area is home to the Lakers and the Kings and is bordered by the University of Southern California and the Staples Center (43). Though it includes West Adams, the hot spot for the elite before there was a Beverly Hills, much of the Figueroa Corridor is in disrepair, and 43 percent of its inhabitants are considered to be in poverty by the federal government (44). As single-room occupancy hotels are replaced with lofts for USC students and other moneyed folk, the residents have organized and stated their needs plainly to developers, to impressive effect. The Figueroa Corridor Coalition for Economic Justice managed to get Rupert Murdoch and Phillip Anschutz to sign the Community Benefits Agreement in 2001, a document that required the Staples Center to include local hiring practices, living wages, union jobs, and neighborhood parks in its four million square foot addition (45). Other avenues utilized by low-income residents include the Housing Trust Fund of the Los Angeles City Council for those making less than 60 percent of the area’s median income, and local rent-stabilization ordinances (45, 46).
In the Central District of Seattle, Washington, Levy showcases what struggling communities can do to keep their identity in an area that has been playing the gentrification game for quite some time (Levy, 53). Central District, while now racially mixed, still has strong black roots from a time when blacks were only allowed to settle in that area of Seattle, and the black residents who remain, about a third of the neighborhood’s population, say that it has become nearly impossible to afford living there (55). Because Seattle’s economic and population boom clashes with its stance of non-sprawl, the pressure is on for developers to get their hands on Central District’s conveniently located properties (56). The Central Area Development Association, or CADA, saw its original community-driven revitalization efforts come to fruition, but at the benefit of the white, higher-income outsiders who bought the homes residents could no longer afford (55). The CADA has now begun pursuit of affordable housing through infill development of mixed-use properties where distressed or abandoned structures are situated, but because the area is entirely built up, the number of properties available for this sort of development is limited to less than twenty (58). Seattle’s housing levy, a property tax assessment earmarked for use in affordable housing preservation efforts for seniors and special needs tenants now helps with Special Objective Areas like Central District, assisting both low-income home purchasers and renters (61).
While the above communities have recognized the potential harm gentrification can inflict and have taken steps to ensure that this harm is minimized, some studies claim the reverse is true, that gentrification is an urban legend of urban studies. In Jacob Vigdor’s voluminous study “Does Gentrification Harm the Poor?” the author argues two opposing positions, that revitalization causes damage to the well-being of economically depressed residents, and that revitalization is a byproduct of other factors damaging to urban residents’ well-being (Vigdor, 134-179). However, Vigdor claims that while gentrification does lead to dramatically higher housing and cost of living expenses, the displacement of poverty-level households is something of a red herring (138-142). In his narrative in which land in two neighborhoods with different amenities is bid on and eventually held by neighborhoods of either the “rich” or the “poor, Vigdor says he has illustrated that the move from one place of residence to another is a matter of a “preference shift” on the part of the poor that causes them to seek to live elsewhere (139). Overall, Vigdor’s study states that the poor households who have previously been labeled “displaced” are in fact simply unwilling to pay for increasing living costs, though he does not answer the original question: if that unwillingness stems from an inability to pay (172).
Some of the Canadian literature on the subject suggests that each community takes a somewhat different approach to the gentrification topic. In Ute Lehrer and Thorben Wieditz’ “Condofication in Toronto”, the authors tackle the area’s recent condominium boom and both criticize and praise the social changes it has brought about. In a reversal of expectations, Toronto chose to spend Section 37 money that could have gone to affordable housing and community centers on park and art spaces instead, focusing on strengthening Toronto’s base as a cultural powerhouse (Lehrer, 149). Like anywhere else, the new additions to this community are young, educated professionals who are forming their own insular microcosms, but in Toronto the local government is taking their side and leaving the poor to the care of non-profit organizations which have ceased to find much financial support from the government (153). However, the authors point with some hope to a study by St. Christopher House, a leading Toronto nonprofit, that suggests that these condo-dwellers, with their wealth and their free time, might be just the sort of volunteers and philanthropists the charities and dependent communities there need, which could help bridge the social gap between the two worlds (154).
In another Canadian study, this time focused on the experiences of the purchasers of smaller-scale non-luxury infill condominium developments in inner-city Montreal, Damaris Rose collects and collates a number of interviews in an effort to find out how important social mix or diversity is to these homeowners (Rose, 278-308). While it was across the board rated as fairly unimportant, the more egalitarian in their responses expressed that they were looking for a strong feeling of community in their neighborhood when they were considering buying there, which the author felt was significant (302). In the closing statements, Rose points out that the one-sided nature of the study, being only the voices of the new residents who express their discomfort with their low-income housing neighbors but are quick to announce their approval of low-income housing, is quite telling, suggesting a psychological blind spot to their own “NIMBY” (not in my backyard) tendencies (303).
One thing all the aforementioned researchers agree on is the need for more research on the topic of gentrification. Thankfully, this does seem to be happening, as urban studies, an area devoted to the functioning of the city, has become a recognized academic field. Gentrification has only in the last 50 years become an area given much serious thought, or has perhaps only existed for that brief span, or might only be an insult levied against those fortunate enough to be leading the march of progress. In any case, the modern city is a new creature and only time and careful, considered study will prove to show whether the process of urban renewal is hazardous to its health or necessary for its survival.
Works Cited
Kirkland, Elizabeth. “What’s Race Got to Do With it? Looking for the Racial Dimensions of
Gentrification.”The Western Journal of Black Studies 32.2 (2008): 18-30. Gale PowerSearch. Web. 20 Nov. 2012.
Lehrer, Ute, and Thorben Wieditz. “Condominium Development and Gentrification: The Relationship Between Policies, Building Activities and Socio-economic Development in Toronto.” Canadian Journal of Urban Research 18.1 (2009): 140-161. Gale PowerSearch. Web. 20 Nov. 2012.
Levy, Diane K., Jennifer Comey, and Sandra Padilla. “In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement.” The Urban Institute, Urban.org, 2006. Web. 20 Nov. 2012.
Rose, Damaris. “Discourses and Experiences of Social Mix in Gentrifying Neighbourhoods: A Montreal Case Study.” Canadian Journal of Urban Research 13.2 (2004): 278-316. Gale PowerSearch. Web. 20 Nov. 2012.
Vigdor, Jacob L. “Does Gentrification Harm the Poor?” Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs (2002): 133-182. Gale PowerSearch. Web. 20 Nov. 2012.
Wharton, Jonathan L. “Gentrification: The New Colonialism in the Modern Era.” Forum on Public Policy (2008): 0-11. Gale PowerSearch. Web. 20 Nov. 2012.
