Earlier this month, New York City's Washington Heights’ local community board rejected Quadridad Realty Partners’ proposal to build four 23-to-39-story apartment buildings. Quadridad’s plans faces significant opposition, not only from the community board, but also from local residents who fear that the buildings will accelerate the rate at which developers gentrify Washington Heights.
Gentrification is usually touted as a boon for so many under-served communities. When more affluent individuals move into a traditionally lower-class neighborhood, many argue that their new presence is an economic lifeline for the community that creates new jobs, improves existing services, and reduces crime rates. Gentrification is a destructive phenomenon that creates class tensions, frequently displaces old residents and destroying beloved cultural traditions.
Gentrification begins when a few individuals, usually artists and students, settle in a district not necessarily known for its popularity. Over time, it becomes rather fashionable and attracts more individuals who, due to the increase in demand, drive up property prices and rent.
Often times, landlords evict current tenants to create more expensive condominiums. In fact, in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, a resident stressed by the increased cost of living told the Washington Post that he and many older inhabitants of the area would be relocating to Pennsylvania. Therefore, many of the original residents of the neighborhood do not ever get to taste the fruits that gentrification brings, because they are forced to leave for communities they can afford.
For those older residents who somehow manage to stay (perhaps because they owned their own homes) there exists a divide between the older residents and the new, more affluent members of the community. Even if they are able to stay within the community, they see these million dollar condos being constructed and know that they will never be able to participate in the gains their community has made. This then creates a division between the community and makes it harder for people of such obviously disparate backgrounds to relate to each other. This tension, however, does not necessarily have to manifest in an economic fashion.
For example, in a neighborhood in Santa Monica, Califorina, which is steadily becoming affluent due to new individuals, there is tension because many of the newcomers do not comply with leash laws. The dog owners, however, complain that they do not have any facilities and are reluctant to use another one, a mile away, that they claim is “unkempt.” This reasserts the divide in that both sides are reluctant to accommodate the other.
Cultural institutions and traditions tend to dissipate during gentrification as well. In the past few years, Long Island City, New York, has undergone transformation due to an influx of more affluent individuals. Also ensuing in the recent years is the move to turn 5 Pointz Aerosol Art Center, a warehouse where graffiti artists can legally paint and has existed for 10 years, into luxury apartments.
We might still continue to argue that, though there are problems associated with gentrification, it is still the best way to save urban communities. However, this is patently untrue. Williamsburg’s transformation did not begin when it was gentrified. In fact, it started during the mid-1980s when New York City poured $750 million into the area. Residents used the money to maintain affordable housing yet fix the neighborhood. Therefore, saving urban communities does not necessarily have to involve gentrification; funds and education would actually help the people who live in these communities without having to sacrifice beloved cultural artifacts, like 5 Pointz, or create unnecessary culture clashes
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The Discussion
I have no problem with neighborhood organizations limiting the kinds of growth they would like to see in their neighborhood, gentrification included, but preservation only works if the neighborhood is being actively sustained. Preserving a neighborhood without addressing its failing economic core and poor schools is like preserving a boat without addressing the gaping hole in the hull- the outcome is predestined. (To extend this, gentrification is like replacing the boat entirely.)
I prefer restoring a neighborhood by targeted investment- any new growth should be accompanied by investment in infrastructure and local institutions. So long as decent credit is made available to all parties, redevelopment can be fair and equitable.
1 Replies
This is an interesting, but awkward, topic. The number of communities who manage to retain their "flavor" and income profiles over many decades or even generations are few. Most neighborhoods, or even entire towns or cities, experience good times & bad. Real estate can be new, or old - and eventually it needs repair or rehab, in which case the original owners do the job or let someone else do it. Plus, with increasing demographics and necessary vertical pressures for urban landscapes, gentrification may well be unavoidable as those who are able seek out the picket fence or even the condo.
Paul - entire Urban rehabilitation debate is far too often fought on basis of passions not facts. I watched the planned demolition of "1" admittedly all but defunct church cost taxpayers 230 million dollars in highway revisions. You could have moved the entire church two blocks for 3 million or built a new one for $2.5 but those options were off the table. Conversely, I've seen hundreds of new homes developed from abandoned/condemned row homes with public/private partnerships. One answer rarely fits all situations. But listening to both sides nearly always shows a path forward.
1 Replies
So...the government should spend hundreds of millions to artificially prop up impoverished neighborhoods in urban centers? Why exactly? To prevent rich people from volunteering to move to these areas, invest in the community, repair the deteriorating historic buildings, and make them whole again? If you brought an alien to Capital Hill in the 90s and said, "Some people want to move in here and fix this, but we're trying to keep this community the way it is," they'd find that insane.
"Cultural traditions" tend to dissipate when cities - our cultural centers - are left to rot from within...when historic neighborhoods fall apart completely...
Just to add another city, just look at the economic disparity in Southeast DC - all of it was caused by gentrification.
4 Replies
Gentrification is not a cure all. There are as noted many outstanding examples of urban redevelopment which allowed the continuation of local traditional communities without razing existing property. What cannot be denied is, many if not the majority of urban areas suffering from decay and blight no longer safely serve their community nor contribute to the economic well being of society. Far too often the extremes in this debate ignore the possibility of finding a middle ground which allows traditional community to continue assisted by new growth from development.
5 Replies