Gentrification, as a process is one which is seen in many westernised cities and large towns where there is an abundance of cheap and easily developable land. As a planning process it is often mired in controversy due to the nature of its application and past examples.
Gentrification is often defined as a localised shift in the demographic, social and economic composition of a particular area, which is often coupled with increased land and property prices and the construction of new developments such as highend residential spaces and upmarket retail units such as boutique stores, prestigious bistros and coffee houses (Lee’s, 2008). One of the key signifiers of a gentrified area is its localised demographics which are often comprised of professional, wealthy and young couples, often without children, ‘Yuppies’ (Smith, 1996). Early gentrified areas often attract Boheme-like communities, who have a desire to live in a ‘unique’ setting, however these communities are often displaced either voluntarily or involuntarily due to economic disparity and image or identity issues with the space. The reasoning for such a distinct population in gentrified areas is the pricing of housing, often out of reach for the average ‘blue collar’ worker, and the desirable lifestyle that is often associated with areas that have the gentrified ‘image’ (Gonzalez, 2012).
Many causes have been attributed to the increase of gentrification and the gradual increase and expansion of the economically mobile middle class, with much research being built on the foundation of Palen and London (1984). First and foremost, a view from an economic lens is used to examine the economic conditions of those who often desire to live in gentrified areas. In developed nations, there has been a surge in the rise of the professional middle class, usually employed in financial and business sectors, this portion of society is highly economically mobile and has significant disposable income. Many duel income professional couples seek to live in areas which are considered ‘desirable’ and well connected. More recently there has been a shift in the desires of the middle class and this has been coupled with a renewed reurbanisation thanks in part to the somewhat decline of the pull of the suburbs. This coupled with the fact that most gentrification occurs in urban settings has led to a gentrification ‘boom’ in the past two decades and is set to continue with more developments being built not only in the west but even in parts of Asia and North Africa, as the portion of middle class continues to grow globally (Smith, 2002).
There are many ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ that the process of gentrification creates, often due to the selective demographic that can afford to live in gentrified areas. It is critical to examine who occupied the space before any development was underway, often in many cases of gentrification, it is usually cheap and undesirable land that is purchased at a low price and is then converted into desirable living space, therefore anyone occupying the land previously would often find themselves being priced out of the area by increasing living costs and in some cases, failure to integrate with the new population. This can be seen quite extensively in the London Dockland development in which many of the areas pre-existing residents were priced out of the area and in some cases ‘bought-out’ by the LDDC. These negative effects in turn can lead to localised homelessness due to lack of affordable housing and the eventual homogenisation of the community due to the specific economic and social requirements of living in a gentrified space (Chum, 2014). On the other hand, gentrification can often lead to significant benefits for its host area such as a reduction in crime and similar antisocial behaviours and a decrease of the strain in which the area places on local infrastructure such as policing and welfare systems (Chaskin, 2012). The local economy often thrives upon the arrival of gentrification with the benefits of an extremely wealthy demographic being passed onto local businesses, which are often non-large corporation owned and therefore any revenue is often kept in the localised economy. From these factors, it is clear that there is an economic class based divide on those who benefit from Gentrification, most often the wealthy and professionally employed middle class, and those who suffer, more likely to be the lower working classes who do not have the economic mobility to be able to afford living in a gentrified area (Shaw, 2015).
Geographically, gentrification can often be placed in one of many models which map the likely candidates for gentrification due to the somewhat predictable nature of the process. Some of the key geographical signifiers of an area likely to become gentrified are: The setting of an area, strongly tied to its urban or rural status. For example, urban areas are usually far more likely to be gentrified due to their strong travel links and already pre-existing job market, this ties in strongly with the professional demographic that usually occupies gentrified areas and their need for good travel links to their places of employment (Lee’s, 2008). Another key signifier of an area that is likely to be gentrified is the spaces overall identity and aesthetic appeal, this again ties in strongly with the nature of those who have a strong desire to live in gentrified areas, many of whom are usually professionally employed in the creative industries such as artists and writers, they therefore, have a desire to live in an area with a high degree of identity or ‘niche’ appeal.
Gentrification is on the rise globally and many argue that it will continue to drive a wedge between the social classes that both benefit and suffer from the impacts and effects of gentrification. However with the rise and homogenisation of the economically mobile middle class, many argue that gentrified areas are the future of human living and spatial relation.
Jersey City has come a long way since the 1970’s. Downtown Jersey City was well known for being one of the poorest parts in New Jersey. Before then it was a very vibrant blue collared community that was home to immigrants from all over. Large families shared small apartments in rent controlled apartments, and historical homes. It was a poor but close knit and hard working community. Soon after developers began to bulldoze over these historical homes, in place building luxury apartments, and bars. Gentrification ,is defined as the arrival of affluent people in a low-income urban neighborhood, which brought about this transformation. I will be talking about what solutions could be offered to the long time residents amongst the rise of cost of living in Jersey City. Amongst the solutions we could look at reducing the property taxes for long time residents according to an income sliding scale as well as putting tax dollars into redevelopments of neighborhoods including fixing parks, roads, schools as well as providing affordable food markets.
Gentrification began its steady march into Jersey City around the 80s. Houses that used to be valued at $100,000 dollars are now being valued at well over $1 million dollars. So as a result with currently having over 70% of residents being renters housing values as well as rent have both sky rocketed. It seems economically downtown jersey city is doing the best compares to all the other areas of this big city. Wherever you go you see construction and advertising for new luxury buildings. Mayor Fulop, city officials, and new residents have voiced approval in the way Jersey City continues to grow. If you speak to other fellow residents of a different socioeconomic status you are hearing the complete opposite. In short those residents are upset at the way this gentrification is affecting them. The costs for them are outweighing the benefits. These not as well to do residents are being displaced with this very gentrification. The ones that are being displaced are primarily minorities. As Jersey City is projected to continue to boom and outgrow Newark in population, what will be done? Prosperity should come to all neighborhoods in the forms of improving crime, schools public spaces and more. According to the official Jersey City website, “The city works hard at its goal to become America’s “most livable city” by providing safe, clean streets, reducing property taxes, and improving the range of educational choices”. However instead of coming to all neighborhoods these changes are only coming to the selective downtown neighborhood.
Developers constantly boast of building affordable housing this affordable housing units however are being catered to those earning over $100,000 and above. Zoning laws aren’t being put in to protect lower income residents. It is rather irresponsible that the city has added thousands of housing units over the years without protecting the lower income residents with new zoning laws. Instead wealth and prosperity is being given to developers. Where is the city’s concern of its citizens? Federal and state programs must be funded or created to assist in the development of affordable housing. “The federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program is the largest source of funding for new affordable housing. State tax credit programs for development of housing are available, but limited”.(Burd) Laws must be made to prevent these developers from bypassing affordable housing through legal loopholes. We also need to strictly control and keep affordable housing as well as rent controlled buildings. The city doesn’t even have a complete list of rent controlled buildings so it can’t even keep landlords accountable.
It is not always the case that low-income residents are forced out peacefully and over time. More often than not lower income residents are more financially vulnerable. They struggle with financial security so they aren’t well equipped for financial emergencies and changes.
“When property owners want to benefit from increasing interest on renewed areas, there is evidence that existing tenants may be ‘encouraged’ to move through various incentives, or in some cases forced to move through harassment, violence and intimidation” ( Mehdipanah 243).
Vulnerable groups are displaced to areas with a high percentage of low income residents. Poor buyers cant compete for housing so they are stuck having to move to impoverished areas. It shifts problems over to another street without solving them long term. In contrast the city can help low income areas through helping owners keep their houses in good repair. Doing so strengthens the earning potential of the community. Financial assistance can be lent to those who need essential repairs done for example roofing. Jersey City needs to protect small landlords in comparison to throwing money at big developers. Division of the wealth and income is something that will stop people from being priced out.
Another thing Jersey City can do to help its lower income residents and stop the negative effects of gentrification is to work on improving the public transportation system. The equation is fairly simple if low income neighborhoods are better connected to job rich areas this allows for opportunities for residents to climb the income ladder. The light rail and unreliable bus system do not do well to connect enough neighborhoods. With access to more housing neighborhoods, one area will not be sought after more than another in turn reducing the price pressure. Homogenization and design also play vital roles in overall community improvements. “An award-winning project called the Schermerhorn, in Brooklyn, New York, by Susan Rodriguez enlivens the street front with a ballet school, and also includes a community room to encourage connection between tenants and the neighborhood. The architecture helped melt local resistance to the presence of formerly homeless individuals and low-income working people”(Russel 97).
This is successful example of a city scape and demographic similar to Jersey City. Many people even say that Jersey City is the new Brooklyn. If such models work there I’m sure they would be truly worth implementing here as well to combat our similar problems.
In conclusion trying to stop gentrification is a difficult battle. It sometimes feels like a losing uphill battle. However actions can be taken to improve the lives of the not as fortunate and struggling residents of Jersey City. On a wider scale, fighting institutional racism and acknowledging that something must be done in order to prevent the obvious economic racial disparities that are so evident in Jersey City is equally as important.
Gentrification is a product of Globalization. But, what even is Globalization? According to Richard C. Longworth in Caught in the Middle, us, Hoosiers don’t even know what it is – let alone have a working understanding of the concept. Globalization by definition is the “connection of different parts of the world resulting in the expansion of international cultural, economic, and political activities” (National Geographic, 2012). Globalization is the idea of the exchange of information or resources. Globalization can present itself in many different forms, including but not limited to: trade, immigration, culture, or knowledge. For example, when you are at the store purchasing a clothing item made from China – this is a product of globalization. According to Longworth, Globalization unites and divides. It cements ties across boarders while weakening old ties at home. It celebrates the transnational at the expense of old loyalties. It brings people together from around the globe while stirring new xenophobia. It destroys old industries and economies and creates new ones – not always in the same places. It makes some people richer and other people poorer and the gap is growing. Globalization can bring positives and negatives – it just depends on the side of the coin you fall on. Those of power, knowledge, and resources are more inclined to benefit from globalization. However, those who are in un-developed countries, those who fall below the poverty line in the United States – those are the individuals who suffer from the products of globalization. In order to identify globalization in your hometown you must first acknowledge gentrification. Gentrification is a ‘process of neighborhood change’ (Hwang & Sampson, 2014). According to When ‘Gentrification’ Isn’t About Housing, the term ‘gentrification’ was coined in 1964 by a British sociologist, Ruth Glass, when writing an essay about the postwar London. Glass began to notice the city was becoming ‘more modern and affluent’ (Stanly, 2018).
Gentrifications Effects on Culture3Britain’s society at the time, made it easy for Glass to identify the ‘gnetifers.’ Their class system was very rigid. However, it is not that easy to spot in the United States at this time. We, Americans, took in the novel interpretation of the meaning of gentrifies – the ‘active colonist.’ An active colonist is someone who tried on neighborhoods like shirts at a thrift shop – turning gentrification into a lifestyle choice (Stanly, 2018). Our society is fluid – making it easier than most to transition from one social class to another. The Cultural Ramification of Gentrification in New Orleans written by a group called “Blights Out,” argues that the practice of gentrification isn’t a new concept – it is foundational. Blights Out is composed of artists, activist, and architect from the New Orleans area. They argue that gentrification is one in the same as vacuum domicilium, which states that land without ‘permanent development’ is open for occupation. This was a legal document that allowed land that was occupied by Native Americans to be taken from them (Blights Out, 2017). The English ‘self-ordained’ themselves with the “authority to judge the value of indigenous people’s land use – their architecture, cultural practices, and agriculture” (Blights Out, 2017). The Native Americans existing lives were found worthless in the eyes of the new comers. A tangible modern day example of gentrification is highlighted by Will Staley. Staley sites Phillip L. Clay’s four stages of gentrification. The first stage are the ‘pioneers’ – often artists. This is when individuals move to abandoned areas with the sole goal of cheap rent. The second, is when the middle class follows. The third is when the numbers of the original population are outnumbered by the new comers. With the final stage being that the neighborhood is fully turned over to banks – the ‘developers and the wealthy’ (Staley, 2018). The source of gentrification is not rooted in evil or to be malicious. It was not sourced in hate – targeting lower income areas or people. However,
Gentrifications Effects on Culture4the ramifications in which gentrification produces is life-changing and life-threating to natives of that town or city. In order to understand today’s gentrification in America – you must first understand the history the United State possesses. In the 1930’s the government started color coding areas of towns and cities. The colors were: green for ‘the best,’ blue for ‘still desirable,’ yellow for ‘definitely declining,’ and red for ‘hazardous.’ Local lenders considered the ‘redlined’ areas as a credit risk – having a huge impact being who was located in those areas based on racial and ethnic demographics (Jan, 2018). The neighborhoods were predominantly African American, as well as Catholics, Jews and immigrants from Asia or southern Europe. These areas were perceived as undesirable. According to Tracy Jan, a report who is dedicated to expanding knowledge on the areas of minorities and the effects on the economy, at The Washington Post, loans in these neighborhoods were either unavailable or very expensive. It made it difficult for low-income minorities to buy homes and gearing the United States for a huge and long-term racial wealth gap (Jan, 2018). These laws have had detrimental effects to those in minority communities – mapping out their lives for the next 100 years. In fact, even nearly 50 years after the Fair Housing Act banning racial discrimination in housing – still, two-thirds of neighborhoods originally sanctioned as ‘hazardous’ are home to mostly minority residents. Nail Smith in Gentrification and Uneven Development, would say we are entering a crisis. The crisis does not stop at residential areas but well throughout the economy. Smith identifies uneven development as a huge player in the gentrification process. Obviously, development in societies do not take place all at once or at the same time. Jackelyn Hwang and Robert J. Sampson agree with Smith, stating that most scholars agree that gentrification is a temporarily uneven process across neighborhoods. Quantitative research rarely
Gentrifications Effects on Culture5examined variation in the evolution of gentrification’s properties and expansions over time. It takes time and planning in order get ideas and companies in those under-development areas, and even longer to make substantial change. However, uneven development is a specific process that is both ‘unique to capitalism and rooted directly in the fundamental social relations of that mode of production’ (Smith, 1982). With differing social significance resulting in geographical patterns, the elite get to choose where they invest their money. Those who are investing – are investing to make a profit. Those who invest in ‘market towns’ versus a capitalist metropolis area are very different. Capitalism is rooted in the production process – valuing physical labor over social exchange (Smith, 1982). In Divergent Pathways of Gentrification, the article addresses that scholars in gentrification have not incorporated racial stratification in shaping the trajectory of gentrifying neighborhoods and their surrounding areas (Hwang & Sampson, 2014). Therefore, those with the power to make changes to the geographic disparities are unconscious to what they are actually doing to those that are not benefiting from the gentrifying areas. Understanding this concept is vital. By making the connections to our American values, like – money and greed, and how it has real impact on fellow Americans we can truly dive into gentrification effects on culture. Many would say the gentrification is more than housing. The implications in which the housing market plays a role in gentrification heightens the severity of the situation for minorities – especially for the black communities. The article, The Cultural Ramification of Gentrification in New Orleans, highlights the fact the Africa-American ancestors were forced to surrender their language, art, architecture, and social structures (Blights Out, 2017) In a modern day example, these communities are not forced to be moved as a whole to a certain area. Rather, they are slowly being invaded by those who are no longer natives. These communities are still forced to
Gentrifications Effects on Culture6surrender their architecture by being taken out of their homes and communities by those coming in, the gnetifers. Those who have already been settled into the community are subject to higher rent charges and stagnate income – making it extremely hard to survive in the new ‘up and coming’ area (Blights Out, 2017). However, I would argue the change of social structure would have the biggest implications on culture. According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, social structure is ‘the internal institutionalized relationships build up by persons living within a group (such as family or community) especially with regard to the hierarchical organization of status and to the rules and principles regulating behavior.” Social structures are fluid – our world does not stay the same. The status, rules, and principles can change due to situations and those around. The gnetifers entering these new areas are ‘dishonest, careless, and clueless’ – this is a part of the privilege of being able to enter unfamiliar territories (Staley, 2018). Those who have the resources to be able to move to one place to another are able to be ignorant to what they are doing to natives because they have no idea what it was like before they entered the city. It is as if the gnetifers have totally revamped the city into something new. And, that is what they do – the natives of that town or city do not even recognize their city by the end of the gentrification process.In Gentrification Isn’t About Housing, a large amount of discourse steams from profit from, the gnetifers, “discovery” and repackaging of other people’s lifestyle. An example Staley identifies is the trendy new ‘tiny house’ phenomenon. A ‘tiny house’ is a home that is less than 1,000 square feet capitalizing on living ‘simply’ in minuscule, moveable homes (Staley, 2018). Does this description remind you of anything? A mobile home or a trailer home or an R.V. They are all one in the same. They all serve the same purpose and concept. However, the stigma, the
Gentrifications Effects on Culture7connotation of the different terms are night and day. Connotations that come with a ‘trailer home’ are those who live in them are poor, or even, dirty. Trailer homes are not located in great areas of cities and towns. The connotations surrounding ‘tiny homes’ are completely different. If you live in a ‘tiny home’ you are trendy. You are a minimalist. Tiny homes are usually in nicer condition than a trailer home – finding cool ways of creating storage or locating a bed in a fun loft area. This is a prime example of products of gentrification. The same concept – however, they are capitalizing off of an existing product and throwing a new label on it. For those being gentrified it is a theft of pride (Staley, 2018). In The Cultural Ramification of Gentrification in New Orleans, addressed ‘gentrified aesthetics’ which is by definition out of place and time and is devoid of context, spirit, or backstory. Ultimately, this is the obsession with the ‘industrial aesthetic’- high ceilings, open floor plans, raw materials of brick, steel, and wood. The article suggests that this industrial look fetishizes our nation’s manufacturing industry (Blights Out). Therefore by ignoring the history, the suffering of the people left in the aftermath of the industrial collapse. The article goes on: “Loft living” is the dream of life without labor, workshops without working-class people. The gentrified aesthetic is a warning, like a burning effigy; an exquisite corpse of other places, other people, other cultures treated as found objects and sewn together like a scarecrow. It is violent. It means: Get out. Along with the newcomers to the city or town that means more authority, more law enforcement. For those of minority and low-income areas this means more eyes, more focus, on them. Not only, are all the gnetifers watching the natives and wondering why they are still around. Or, an even worse situation, the gnetifers whispering how there was nobody who lived in the city or town before them. However, the law enforcement that was brought to the city because of the
Gentrifications Effects on Culture8gnetifers. Hence – the law enforcement will put policies into action that are an aid to those of higher statuses. The gnetifers brought them to the new city, provide their wages from the taxes they pay, and in hopes that they will do good by the new city – but it can at an expense for many. The gnetifer’s and all that follows effect the culture – destroying the culture of that town or city, killing the stamina and determination of the natives because the new man is in town. It is perceived appropriation – that is ingrained itself into the way we think about gentrification in America (Staley, 2018). Gentrification fells like an unstoppable problem. The original reason for gentrification were to bring more jobs to towns or cities and to boost the moral, bringing in nicer, trendier things for the locals. However, this is not how the pieces fall. With the new and ‘improved’ economic status of the city or town comes loss and grief of a life once lived. It is almost impossible with the resources provided to save the town you once knew. Breaking out of the cycle of oppression on minority communities is a long process – that we are still waiting to see it happen. We must revamp the way in which our minority communities are represented and perceived. We must change laws that directly target minority communities and we must be willing to hear them at the table! We have to start communicating with one another, with different communities, and begin the process of understanding one another. If the gnetifers have any idea what they were doing to the communities they enter – if they take time to talk with and interact – ask them what improvements they would like to see in their city before jumping in without any former knowledge. Communication is key and if we don’t start talking the rich will continue to be rich and the poor will stay poor.
Generations of all kinds have arrived to this nation with dreams of living a life of success. Gentrification removes lower class citizens, and in turn increases the cost of living and leads to major demographical changes. Gentrification certainly has some advantages, but overall it has led to the increase of the homeless population, culture loss, increased group based tensions, increase/change in availability of goods, and other social issues. Today, gentrification may be impossible to prevent, since capitalism is a constant influence.
“Gentrification is the process of renewing deteriorated neighborhoods to benefit the wealthy individuals while displacing those with poor socioeconomic residents, which results in increased property values and the removal of impoverished families and small businesses”. “The restoration of deteriorated urban property or the transformation of a working class or vacant” area of the central city into middle-class residential and/or commercial use”. The media is definitely a big aspect of modern day society that influences people ‘s perspective on if gentrification is a positive or negative occurrence. Gentrification usually involved business growth to increase the “richness” of a city. Gentrification can have a negative affect and can be seen as a race issue. A “superior” population will take a poorer, mixed-race neighborhood and reconstruct them with their new businesses.
Authority figures and those involved use different methods to isolate the poorer classes, such as the use of media marketing strategies to gentrify and disempower them. Even so, gentrification has many positive effects, but negative effects often surpass the positive ones. Gentrification does not necessarily have to be a negative movement, if we approach it differently, such as attracting new residents while keeping the local residents. Gentrification can also cause tensions amongst the old residents v.s the new resident. Gentrification can have a negative affect and can be seen as a race issue. A “superior” population will take a poorer, mixed-race neighborhood and reconstruct them with their new businesses. Gentrification has more to do with the socioeconomic of new residents, and not race, although there is a connection. The concept of gentrification is more complex than a standard definition and it takes into account more then we may realize such as: Demographics, Ethnicity, Real Estate, Transportation factors, Land Use, Culture, and Character.
I’ve lived in New York for 20+ Years. I had great friends, but they were the bad influences. Growing up in the Bronx was not easy. It was tough, especially when there were drug dealers and gang members in every corner. The drug dealers were cool in my eyes because they had all the girls, nice cars, and money. I wouldn’t associate with them because my mother would not allow it. My mother is a hard working citizen, always working multiple jobs to pay the bills. There has been a tremendous change in Brooklyn between class related issues and gentrification. Brooklyn is one more economic factor to the city’s wealth per capita since the September 11 attacks. It is Manhattan’s last remaining development and it is on the agenda of the tax revenue of our government. The Brooklyn area adjacent to Manhattan has become a profit. Gentrification allows for capitalism, it does not separate people, it does not go against race, poor and the working class, it wages war on the poor and the working-class.
The article Super-gentrification: The case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City details in length the gentrified are of Brooklyn heights, NY in the mid 2000s. This concept of “super gentrification” comes from gentrified places that are already considered middle class or affluent, to make them even more luxurious. Gentrification has become a popular idea in the United States, a constant topic of urban discussion. It is a process that has attracted the attention of media, architects, national governments, local governments, businesses, urban planners, developers, businesses, and political activists.
Commonly, convention centers, new stadiums and festival marketplaces were built and warehouses along rivers were made into shopping and leisure complex, for example, South Street Seaport in New York City or the west side development near 34th street. Gentrification of neighborhoods pushes out the low-income residents who cannot afford the new expensive houses. The movement of the upper class residents into low class neighborhoods changes the living standards of these neighborhoods. Rent and house prices go up, pushing out the permanent residents who can no longer afford to live in these neighborhoods.
New York is the most popular for this. Gentrification has made New York one of the most expensive city in the United States. The resources in the crown heights, Harlem, Brooklyn heights, DUMBO, etc neighborhoods have increased the living conditions in these neighborhoods. Harlem was an African American neighborhood, but now those who cannot afford housing in the neighborhoods have been driven out.
Gentrification is the complex social process by which large amounts of money and investment, pour quickly into lower income communities. Thus, leading to the displacement of many longstanding residents and local independent businesses. The effects of this process can be observed across almost every major city in The United States a prime example being, New York City. When New York comes to context, “the capital of the world” comes to mind, New York however is not what it used to be, it is becoming the capital of the world of gentrification. Gentrification is a two-way street, some head towards the idea that these neighborhoods are being poisoned, by the increase in the cost of living, discrimination towards minorities, and the overall loss of identity and culture in these places.
Others drive away from this idea and believe that gentrification is cleaning the stains of poverty ridden neighborhoods. That it results in crimeless, more sanitary, economically robust communities. Everything that shines is not always gold though. Gentrification is a negative driving force, that is pushing out native locals and businesses from their homes. Driven by the influx of the wealthy coming to less affluent communities, the exploitation of weak public policies and the thirst for capital. In order to combat these problems, communities need to get more active in public affairs, affordable housing needs to be developed, lastly new ideas must be experimented.
Gentrification is a fire that is fueled by many contributors. These factors are not independent variables, they are the cause and effect of each other. Alana Schubach cites a 2015 study from UCLA and Berkley researchers which concludes,” There are three factors driving neighborhood change, the movement of people, public policies and investments, and flows of private capital (2)”. The movement of people being described is the desire of people wanting to move to cities because of the amenities they provide. Amenities such as public transportation, nearby hospitals, job and educational opportunities are persuasive reasons for one to move to a city.
However, moving can be an expensive process, so the ones doing the moving are usually doing above average financially. According to Benjamin Grant this trend caught wind about 50 years ago, ‘Starting in the 1970s and picking up steam in the 1990s, people with resources and choices ‘rediscovered’ cities, and the downside of the suburbs became very apparent, naturally prices started to come up [in cities] and investments were made (7)”. The more people were exploring cities, the more obvious the advantages of these cities became as well as the disadvantages of living in the suburbs. Therefore, leading to a higher demand for housing in these places. Which in turn lead to prices going up on property, as well as developers and investors building new houses in order to meet supply and demand.
In the 1960s, New York City quickly caught on to the problems that were afflicted upon lower income residents caused by the high demands for housing. Problems such as increase in rent, growing housing scarcity and arising conflicts. Officials in response created rent stabilization, which are certain regulations set by the city in order to protect lower income residents. An example of such, being the inability of a landlord to raise the cost of rent after a certain limit. However, in 1994 the New York City Council passed a vote that allowed landlords to deregulate apartments once the price of rent rises to $2000, today that cost has risen to $2700.
Alana Schubach quotes a Pro Publica report stating, “Of the 860,000 apartments that were stabilized in the mid-’90s, almost 250,000 have become market rate in the intervening two decades (7)”. Essentially this rule the City Council passed resulted in a loophole for apartment owners in which they can get their apartment out of regulation, and into the free market. This new rule drew pressure on landlords to persuade rent regulated tenants to leave their apartments, because of the higher amount of profit that could be made in the deregulated market.
In the chase of modernization, the mayor of New York during 1978 through 1989, Ed Koch, pushed the city government towards passing policies more biased towards privatization. Mayor Koch was focused on the rejuvenation of New York as a whole and the invigoration of the economy. To accomplish these goals, Koch wanted the city to appeal towards high class educated citizens for them to populate the city. Further wanting to make the city attractive to tourists and big business in order to stimulate the economy, Koch needed the help of developers and investors to rebuild the city. Celia Weaver elaborates stating, “Under Mayor Ed Koch, City Hall’s goal became to recreate New York, making it friendly to big business, tourists, real estate developers, and upscale professionals, the city brought in big real estate developers and corporations with generous tax abatements and other government subsidies (4)”.
In order to manifest this ideology, he persuaded “big real estate developers and corporations” with financial aid and the reduction, or elimination of property tax. However, these tax abatements and subsidies were public funds which were intended for the poor, ended up being invested in the wrong things. This is just the tip of the iceberg, bankers and investors viewed Koch’s proposition as the perfect opportunity to make capital observing the speculation of New York City as a goldmine. The phenomenon known as Gentrification has many negative impacts on individuals. The heart of it being the displacement of low-income families. As gentrification takes course, affluent individuals and families begin to migrate to low- or median-income areas. In response, the demand for new luxury housing goes up, as well as the price of property. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development housing is thought of as affordable when someone who earns 80% of the average income of an area, spends up to 1/3 of their money on rent.
As new expensive buildings go up with cheaper one’s going down, as well as the influx of wealthier citizens, the AMI or the average median income goes up. AMI and affordable housing go hand in hand with each other. As the AMI of a neighborhood rises so does the standard of “affordable” housing in direct relation. Affordable housing is bought out and then transformed into a more expensive product which the average person can’t afford. Yazmine Nichols further elaborates,” As the number of luxury housing sites surges throughout NYC, fewer units of affordable housing are being built and even those few units that are deemed affordable are beyond the means of most community residents (2)”. The less affluent are struggling to keep up with the new economic standards and pressures in these cities. As scarcity of affordable housing goes up as well as the cost of living, low income families enter a chain reaction where they are moved into worse and worse housing options until they are eventually displaced.
On the contrary however, Richard Cravatts believes, “Market conditions that encourage the building of new housing have a two-pronged benefit for the community: as new housing is created and neighborhood residents who had been renters become owners of new units, their old housing-much of it rental-is freed up for a whole new group of renters who either move from less desirable units (freeing up more units) or come into the neighborhoods for the first time. Thus, gentrification, by making a community attractive to investors, actually enables many renters to move up the housing ladder into presumably better apartments, without displacing tenants and by making their old units available for yet another set of renters below them (1).” While it is understandable that Cravatts would think more housing development means more housing options, he is wrong because this does not account for the increased cost of rent that poor residents can’t pay. Only the ones who are financially able, are the ones moving up the housing ladder. The process Cravatts describes is backwards, as the wealthier move up the housing ladder the less fortunate either stay in place because of the unaffordable new housing or must leave because they simply can’t keep up with rising costs.
Gentrification is also a contributor towards the current discrimination of minorities, such as people of color. Instead of community integration what ends up resulting from gentrification is segregation due to the imaginary borders being created of the wealthy and poor in these cities. As the wealthier white citizen moves into a city with a predominant minority population, there is more pressure on law enforcement to regulate these areas thereby exponentially increasing the already underlying bias of police towards people of black and Spanish ethnicity. Adult minorities are not the only ones being affected by growing discrimination, “ This is most evident in the New York City public school system, where students are segregated by factors like race and income, and where Black and Latinx students are disproportionately punished for minor infractions” (Nichols 2). From adults in the street being targeted by police, to children in schools receiving unfair punishment, gentrification spares no victims in the minority population.
This gentrification fueled discrimination does not stop at over policing; minorities are having a harder time buying homes. Stemming from the imperfections of the community reinvestment act, which was ironically passed to help communities with a higher percentage of immigrants and African Americans. According to Aaron Glantz, “Banks meet their Community Reinvestment Act obligations by marketing affordable loan products to the neighborhood’s newcomers, who typically are able to get a conventional mortgage with a 3 percent down payment, compared with the industry’s gold standard of 20 percent (4)”. What these banks failed to predict is that these newcomers are not the low-income immigrants or African Americans they were intended to protect, these newcomers are the young, wealthy white citizen. Under this regulation, it became more convincing and easier for the more affluent citizen to move into these once looked down upon neighborhoods. Naturally because of this movement, banks became more bias towards giving white people home loans instead of people of color regardless of their financial background.
People and their families are not the only victims of gentrification. Also suffering from gentrification are local and independent business. Long standing businesses are under constant harassment from developers to close up shop in order for them to create new projects that results in profit. These native stores are in danger of being bought out and replaced with new luxury housing or businesses preferred by the new wealthy citizen. It is harder for independent business to maintain in a gentrifying climate. Property cost goes up, leading to higher storefront rent making it hard for these local store owners to make profit. In response these owners must increase the price of goods or the cost of services to match the growing rent prices. With a new consumer identity, the displacement of old customers, increase in cost of services and goods as well as decreasing commerce, gentrification makes the ability of these businesses to strive and prosper very difficult.
An important way in fighting gentrification is the support of groups such as Community Land Trusts. Residents and landowners in neighborhoods with growing problems from gentrification need to come together in unity for their voices to be heard. As well as becoming aware and involved in community and public affairs when it comes to development. “Despite facing an uphill battle, many communities have developed a social ownership model that prevents developers from assembling large commercial sites.
These models are commonly known as community land trusts (CLT) a concept originally conceived by Black farmers in the Jim Crow South — and have spread across U.S. cities as residents strive to regain control of their neighborhoods and maintain affordable housing (Nichols 4)”. More groups such as CLTs need to be created and must act in collaboration with their city’s government in order to meet eye to eye with each other when it comes to topics such as new developments or rezoning. Teamwork makes the dream work. Today’s CLTs in New York have already begun making process, they received a grant from the city of $1.65 million to fund projects of theirs as well as being officially classified by city officials.
An important way in fighting gentrification is the support of groups such as Community Land Trusts. Residents and landowners in neighborhoods with growing problems from gentrification need to come together in unity for their voices to be heard. As well as becoming aware and involved in community and public affairs when it comes to development. “Despite facing an uphill battle, many communities have developed a social ownership model that prevents developers from assembling large commercial sites. These models are commonly known as community land trusts (CLT) a concept originally conceived by Black farmers in the Jim Crow South — and have spread across U.S. cities as residents strive to regain control of their neighborhoods and maintain affordable housing (Nichols 4)”.
More groups such as CLTs need to be created and must act in collaboration with their city’s government in order to meet eye to eye with each other when it comes to topics such as new developments or rezoning. Teamwork makes the dream work. Today’s CLTs in New York have already begun making process, they received a grant from the city of $1.65 million to fund projects of theirs as well as being officially classified by city officials.
In order to combat affordable housing scarcity, the development of new affordable housing complexes needs to be a priority. The strengthening of old policies such as rent regulation, new stronger policies focused on anti-displacement and regulation in the complexes to match. Having private investors fund this project would be walking backwards in a sense, the city should be the one investing in this effort. With the development of these buildings comes jobs in these areas, a further reason that city officials should consider. Celia Weaver explainss, ‘The city needs to use public land to build deeply affordable housing for people who are at most risk, as speculative capital flows into neighborhoods,’ she says. ‘The entire city is attractive to investors, and the role of city government should be to build at the bottom and implement strong anti-displacement measures. There’s no reason for them to do planned gentrification—the market is doing that on its own. (11)”. There should also be rules which can limit the production of high-end housing for a certain time period.
On the contrary though fixing the problems of gentrification might not be as easy as it seems. In 2002 London experimented with the implantation of affordable workspace policies in multiple boroughs to protect small business. “In the early 2000s, a few London boroughs started to introduce affordable workspace policies, using planning gain to require that new mixed-use development on employment land should provide some ‘affordable workspace’ to be let at discounted rent to a workspace provider who takes on the lease, fits out the space and in turn sub-lets and manages the units to small business occupiers (Jessica Ferm 6)”. The purpose of this experiment was to save and provide affordable workspace store fronts in business districts where there was ongoing development.
These experiments ended in mixed results with the conclusion being that these workspace policies could mistakenly fuel the fire of the displacement of small business. The real concern being that it erodes the integrity of employment areas, which raises expectations that further redevelopment and loss of employment land could be achieved in an area (Ferm 15)”. Displacement of people and the closure of independent business are the direct offspring of gentrification. The parents of gentrification being the mass movement of the affluent, the misuse of regulations, and the greed for profit. Instead of helping the whole community, gentrification enables the wealthier to move up in rank while the less fortunate are either running in place or going backwards, causing poverty and homelessness within the lower class, it is digging a deeper hole that the less fortunate cannot get out of.
Alters, Sandra M., et al. ‘The Law, the Courts, and the Homeless.’ Homeless in America: How Could It Happen Here?, Detroit, Gale, 2006, pp. 63-71.
This source talks about how gentrification forces out low-income families and changes ‘skid rows’ or single-room occupancy hotels to make them more modern to appeal to the middle and upper-class people which forces out lower class people into homelessness. It also discusses the harsh living conditions of the homeless and the laws that the government has passed to control homelessness. This information comes from Gale Ebooks, it is a reference source, the majority of the information was from the topic overview in chapter 6: The Law, The Courts, and The Homeless. Gale is a very reputable source and this information was published in 2006. Although this source is not current it provides background information to the what is happening currently in the U.S.I will use this source to talk about homelessness and make connections between gentrification and homelessness to prove that gentrification is the cause of homelessness in many low-income communities in the U.S.
Camp, Jordan T. ‘Blues Geographies and the Security Turn: Interpreting the Housing Crisis in Los Angeles.’ American Quarterly, vol. 64, no. 3, 2012, pp. 653-679.
This source talks about ‘trap economics’, and that gentrification works to trap African Americans and poor people through incarceration for misdemeanors, along with mass eviction of lowincome people in ‘single-room occupancy hotels’ by arguing that gentrifiers are attempting to reclaim land for ‘high-end real estate development. This information is from an article called ‘Interpreting the Housing Crisis in Los Angeles’ from another credible source from American Quarterly one of the best resources in American Studies, in 2012. The author of this source is a scholar from ULCA who has written other work published in the American Quarterly. I will use this source to provide evidence of how gentrifiers get rid of lowerclass people. This source gives two examples, which are mass incarceration and eviction through raising the property value and the prices of housing. This source will be useful because it also shows the correlation between homelessness and gentrification and gives evidence as to how.
Zukin, Sharon. Gentrification. Edited by William A. Darity, Jr, Gale, 2008. Gale in Context: Environmental Studies
This source disproves the notion that gentrification is beneficial to poor communities, gentrification displaces low-income families. This argument also says that studies on gentrification fail to show the real numbers of low-income families forced out of their homes contributing to homelessness. It also talks about how gentrifiers and the media downplay displacement to attract more investors. This information is from Gale In Context, in 2008.
This source comes from a subject encyclopedia which is a high-quality academic source which is a great place to start research, this source sites another source written by an expert by the name of Sharon Zukin who has written many books. I will use this source to further prove the point that gentrification leads to homelessness in low-income communities and that the negative effects of gentrification outway the positives, while also arguing that gentrification has a direct positive effect on homelessness in the U.S.
The modern world evolves rapidly. Numerous things that for decades have remained topical become outdated and are replaced with new phenomena today. There are many causes for the appearance and development of this tendency. These include technological revolution, radical shits in peoples mentalities, the emergence of new perspectives on the way communities should live and evolve (Walks & Maarnen, 2008).
However, regardless of these reasons, the world changes, and its image changes too. We now can observe the rise of giant cities and crucial alterations of their suburbs. These processes also result from new requirements to the quality of life, its mode, basic features, etc. In such a way, it could be considered a logical process that is peculiar to every stage of the development of human society. Additionally, there are multiple and diverse phenomena that shape the view of the modern world and stimulate the appearance of new tendencies with their advantages and disadvantages. Gentrification is one of these processes.
Definition. Pros and Cons. Gentrified Areas
There are different perspectives on the given term and the role it plays in the modern world. Thus, the most common definition of gentrification states that it is a process aimed at the improvement and renovation of significantly deteriorated urban neighborhoods and areas that occur under the impact of new tendencies and the income of more affluent and wealthy residents who inhabit these very regions (Walks & Maarnen, 2008).
At the first gaze, the given issue could be considered a positive one as it results in the gradual improvement of the image of particular areas, and they’re becoming more attractive to both tourists and local people (Barlow, 2014). Additionally, it might serve as the additional point of income for the local governments as wealthier citizens mean higher revenue from taxes. Furthermore, the high level of crime is traditionally associated with poor and deteriorated neighborhoods (King, 2016). Complex living conditions are accompanied by poverty and the gradually worsening environment resulting in the rise of crime (King, 2016).
For this reason, renovation and the influx of new inhabitants with stable sources of income and opportunities for further development might significantly improve the situation in the area. For instance, according to the relevant statistics, all gentrified regions show a significant reduction in crime levels (Barlow, 2014). These advantages are traditionally suggested by the adherers of the idea of gentrification and its necessity for modern communities. However, there is another perspective on the issue. Opponents of the given process provide a list of disadvantages that evidence the contradictory character of renovation. First, gentrification gives rise to numerous ethical concerns as it affects potentially vulnerable populations and makes them leave their homes to give way to a new group (Barlow, 2014).
The majority of gentrified districts are characterized by the emergence of a specific pattern of population movement. (King, 2016). Residents are forced to move from the area that experiences gentrification, trying to find less expensive housing, stores, and infrastructure (Barlow, 2014). Moreover, local businesses also become replaced by new ones because of the inability to meet the increased requirements for the quality of suggested products, pricing policy, etc. (Barlow, 2014). In such a way, gentrification might be associated with the displacement of households and their discrimination. Additionally, statistics show that the given process preconditions a significant shortage of affordable housing and appearance concerns related to the further evolution of a community (Walks & Maarnen, 2008).
In such a way, there are both advantages and disadvantages connected with gentrification. However, despite all these concerns, new areas undergo it. For instance, starting from the 1960s, Vancouver has experienced several waves of gentrification, which altered the image of the city significantly (Walks & Maarnen, 2008). Having started from Fairview and Kitsilano, it then moved to the Central Business District and Gastown.
All these areas demonstrated some positive dynamics as about 14% of them made the transition to above-average incomes (Walks & Maarnen, 2008). More examples of gentrified neighborhoods could be found in Montreal. It was concentrated around Old Montreal and the port area, Westmount and Outremont. Gentrification significantly affected these areas by introducing new prices for dwellings and reconsidering relations between residents (Walks & Maarnen, 2008).
Saint-Henri Gentrification
Speaking about gentrification and its impact on communities, we can also mention Saint-Henri as the area which now undergoes this procedure. However, this process gives rise to numerous ethical concerns. The fact is that for decades the area has been considered a bastion of the francophone working class with its own unique peculiarities and features (Hays, 2016). In such a way, any attempt to introduce alterations to St.-Henri becomes a complex issue as residents resist it. Despite numerous protests and appeals to slow down the speed of gentrification or even stop it, it remains inevitable and should obviously be embraced. There are several reasons for this assumption. First, gentrification is the part of the modern world that results from the appearance of new demand to the quality of life, products, and other services (King, 2016).
The constantly developing environment means that people generate new ideas trying to improve their current state and move further. Yet, the old setting is not able to satisfy these demands and provide individuals with all they want. Additionally, gentrification should be considered a form of urban renewal aimed at the significant enhancement of living conditions and the quality of peoples lives (Montpetit, 2016). At the same time, there are diverse patterns related to urbanization and the growth of giant cities. In accordance with these, all districts of the city should have a similar level of development for this very city to be able to move further and evolve (King, 2016).
In such a way, the gentrification of Saint-Henri becomes a problem, not for a single neighborhood but for the whole city as its residents resistance slows down the overall improvement and preconditions significant delays in urban renewal plans (Hays, 2016). There is also another aspect proving the inevitable character of this change. Changes are a central aspect of the evolution of any system as they precondition the appearance of new features and unique opportunities. At the same time, their absence means stagnation and inability to move further, which is extremely dangerous for communities. In such a way, gentrification becomes inevitable for this area as it should be altered to evolve.
GTA Gentrification
Finally, speaking of gentrification, we could also mention the Greater Toronto Area, which has some gentrified regions characterized by significant alteration in their demographics and population structure. For instance, Leslieville, the district of Toronto, has undergone global improvement and renewal with the reconsideration of demographical factors (“Neighbourhoods & communities,” n.d.). Incomes in the area climbed by an average of 53%, which means that today the average revenue comprises about $99,000 compared to $65,000 before the gentrification started (King, 2016). Moreover, the high speed of renovation resulted in the incredible growth of wealth among business owners living in Leslieville as the number of diverse establishments doubled (12 to 27) (King, 2016).
Previously, people preferred to move to other areas like Scarborough to acquire some opportunities for their personal and professional growth. However, today, the inverse tendency could be observed as people living in other not gentrified areas prefer to move here. In such a way, in accordance with the latest demographic data, the population of the district almost doubled (King, 2016). Additionally, this growth in the number of inhabitants is supported by the increase in salaries and annual revenues (King, 2016). The combination of these factors resulted in the absence of complaints from residents as they appreciate the fact that old things have gone away and now people can benefit from new opportunities for their development.
Conclusion
In such a way, gentrification becomes an important aspect of the modern world as it stimulates the appearance of diverse changes in the life of communities. However, it could also be considered a contradictory issue as it gives rise to numerous concerns. People residing in gentrified areas might lose their homes, businesses and will have to move to other neighborhoods characterized by lower prices and affordable dwellings.
That is why individuals might resist this sort of change because of their fear of drastic alterations in their modes of life. Nevertheless, regardless of this fact, gentrification should be considered as an integral part of the modern world, and its inevitability should be accepted by individuals who want to live in a new and more convenient society that offers them a broad range of diverse opportunities.
The concept of gentrification denotes the development of urban areas through the arrival of wealthier people from other regions. The process of gentrification usually takes a short period that is characterized by the inflation of property prices as well as the displacement of original inhabitants. In most cases, prosperous outsiders displace poor communities living in targeted urban areas, a situation that has a negative impact on the well-being of original residents.
For instance, individuals who previously owned the land before the entry of new people have to cope with issues that range from high standards of living and joblessness to cultural interferences. However, gentrification has its pros. For instance, it is attributed to the transformation of an area’s economy since it facilitates the development of higher-income households in a region that formerly consisted of lower-income residents.
Gentrification presents complex consequences, which require the establishment of strategies, including advocacy initiatives, remaining in one’s region through vitalization, and communication programs, which aim at facilitating interactions among outsiders and residents. This paper finds it crucial to understand its implications on contemporary urban society, particularly Miami, Florida.
Why/How Gentrification Happens and Who Benefits
A few cities have emerged since World War II. These metropolitans have focused on developing urban neighborhoods characterized by a relatively low cost of living. However, preventing the entry of individuals into new regions has been inevitable. The process of gentrification occurs in the form of accretion where growth is reported gradually before it gains momentum within a short period (Lees, Slater, & Wyly, 2007).
According to Ding, Hwang, and Divringi (2016), gentrification is much common in the United States due to people’s increasing interest in city life. Initially, few outsiders were enthusiastic to settle in unfamiliar neighborhoods characterized by class as well as racial differences. However, the arrival of more people in various neighborhoods or cities gradually occurred, with a group of related individuals occupying specific regions (Ding et al., 2016). As Lees et al. (2007) reveal, rapid changes eventually take place in these areas following reports that an attractive neighborhood has been identified as being conducive for business and residential purposes among other reasons.
The happening of gentrification may be compared to the act of a snowball gaining momentum. In the current context, previously unattractive settings attract rich outsiders whose statuses result in considerable changes in demographics, real estate markets, land use, and culture. As more people arrive, further developments are witnessed in areas that surround gentrified neighborhoods. Notable outcomes that follow the gentrification of a given place include the growth of infrastructure and the improvement of community resource centers (Ding et al., 2016).
Consequently, gentrification not only increases the value of material goods but also augments economic activities. As such, local governments collect more revenue from assets that gained price. They also benefit from increased economic transactions whose turnover bolsters economic growth.
Outsiders, mostly rich people entering a neighborhood, are often the beneficiaries of the process of gentrification. According to Lees et al. (2007), affluent individuals arriving at a formerly undesired neighborhood take advantage of the available cheap housing and industrial buildings, which they easily acquire before converting them into appealing homes and business premises. The higher-income status of incoming individuals allows them to capitalize on the low-value property and hence the reason their activities end up flourishing.
Nonetheless, Ding et al. (2016) reveal the extent to which gentrification benefits the rich at the expense of the original and poor residents who are relocated, despite having inhabited their regions for several generations. Overall, wealthy people have little to lose in the process of gentrification in most urban neighborhoods compared to lower-income earners who originally resided in the affected areas before the arrival of outsiders.
Who is Displaced and Why Does Displacement Happen?
As earlier mentioned, the process of gentrification triggers the displacement of the original residents of a particular neighborhood that undergoes rapid changes in terms of demographics, real estate landscape, land use, and civilization (Hwang & Sampson, 2014).
Original residents of districts or areas that are subjected to gentrification are usually deprived financially. Higher-income earners who enter these neighborhoods are perceived to have a significant potential for growth prompt changes that make it difficult for locals to manage (Shaw & Hagemans, 2015). Competition for the scarce supply of housing between the affluent class and poor locals causes inflation in the form of increased rents and property prices. Consequently, lower-income households in the neighborhood find it difficult to survive in a region that lacks adequate and affordable housing due to the arrival of rich outsiders.
In addition to the housing supply shortage arising from gentrification that triggers the displacement of local people in a given neighborhood, the establishment of new businesses by outsiders is also a factor for consideration as far as displacement is concerned. As Lees et al. (2007) reveal, within a short period after settling in an area that was formerly considered unattractive, outsiders bring about economic changes that drive the value of key assets upwards.
Consequently, long-existing local family-owned firms are replaced by new retail enterprises such as clothing stores, coffee shops, and art galleries among other businesses. A study by Ding et al. (2016) identifies poor African-Americans and Latin-Americans as the most vulnerable population, especially when gentrification takes a racial dimension. As such, the competition brought about by affluent outsiders influences the exit of locals since they find the changing economic atmosphere unfriendly.
As Hwang and Sampson (2014) observe, the new face of business created by the gentry in a particular urban setting pushes the prices of products and services upwards, thus prompting lower-income families to relocate. In most cases, original inhabitants of a neighborhood that undergoes gentrification experience inflation that follows due to the arrival of outsiders, a situation that strains the revenue of working-class families, thereby undermining their ability to pay for rent and other goods and services (Ding et al., 2016). As a result, poor local dwellers in a particular area end up relocating in search of affordable housing and livelihood.
Cost of Living Increases
Gentrification is linked to an increased cost of living since the entry of outsiders influences economic changes. Miami, Florida, is one of the most expensive places to live in the U.S. due to the continued arrival of rich outsiders. Regarding the cost of living measurements, out of 100 metropolitan cities, Miami is at position 41 of the most luxurious cities to live in America. On average, the annual cost of living in this region is projected to be almost $85,000 for a family of four, which is a 20% increase compared to the status reported five years ago (Wile, 2018). This figure is considerably higher in relation to other cosmopolitan areas in the U.S. The high cost of living in Miami is attributed to expensive house rents, utilities, food, and transportation.
Housing prices in Miami vary from one neighborhood to another due to racial and social class differences existing in this city. Areas in Miami with typical sky-high rents include Coconut Grove, Brickell, and South Beach whereas regions such as Liberty City and Overtown are characterized by low rents and high insecurity incidences. As a result, people seeking to reside in safe places within Miami have been pushed to neighborhoods associated with high rents.
According to Mcavoy (2018), year-over-year changes in accommodation rates and rents in Miami have been 1.39% and 2.385, correspondingly. Additionally, this city recorded a 1.76% average change in consumer price index (CPI) for the period between 2014 and 2017 (Mcavoy, 2018). Variations in home value, rent, and CPI are considerable, a situation that depicts standards of living in Miami as not fit for lower-income earners.
Costs associated with utilities, food, and transportation mechanisms have been on the rise in Miami because of the arrival of wealthy individuals over the past few years. In 2018, the average cost of utilities in Miami is projected to be $150 per month for 1,000 square-foot public housing whose average rent stands at $1,819 for the same period (DePersio, 2018). In this regard, working-class families earning less than $1,500 monthly find it unbearable to cope with the high cost of utility bills and rental fees. Furthermore, as DePersio (2018) uncovers, the average price of food per week in Miami is $100 whereas unlimited monthly bus transportation averages $113.
In this view, the cost of living in this city’s various urban settings is relatively high when compared to suburban areas. Nonetheless, according to Mcavoy (2018), the emergence of climate gentrification in Miami is perceived to lead to rapidly rising prices of key products and services. In this concern, gentrification poses adverse effects denoted by a higher cost of living, which forces lower-income households to relocate to neighborhoods with affordable living standards.
Property Value Increases
The onset of gentrification in Miami in the recent past has been associated with subsequent upsurges in the cost of property, especially residential and industrial assets. According to Mcavoy (2018), homes have recorded a 1.39% year-over-year change in value, which is a considerably higher rate in a city that is characterized by significant racial and income disparities. Over a period of five years, the median sales price for properties in Miami has gone up substantially as shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. The median sales price for all properties in Miami (“Real estate data for Miami,” 2018)
The above graph presenting market trends regarding median property sales in Miami between November 2013 and May 2018 implies that the value of residential and commercial properties has been on the increase. In November 2013, the median property sales value stood at $208,399 before reaching $315,000 in May 2018 (“Real estate data for Miami,” 2018). This rise in the median sales price for various properties indicates that the cost of homes and business premises has also increased.
Such a trend is attributed to the activities of wealthy individuals seeking to inhabit and set up businesses in Miami. As such, these rising property values portray the consequences of gentrification in Miami as well as other urban areas that have witnessed the arrival of rich individuals who seek to reside, work, or invest in a less developed region.
Who Takes Over the Newly Developed Areas?
As earlier noted, gentrification brings about the displacement of original residents in a particular neighborhood following changes initiated by outsiders. These affluent individuals take over various developed areas after displacing working-class families that resided in such places for decades or even generations (Hwang & Sampson, 2014). Professionals and their couples or families in the upper-middle-class mainly occupy developed regions after the lower working class relocates due to the scarcity of housing resulting from high rental fees and property values.
New and higher middle-class individuals inhabit urbanized neighborhoods to enhance their proximity to work, public amenities, and transit (Lees et al., 2007). Overall, the need for an urban environment and the pursuit of professional or business goals influence individuals from the upper working class to displace local residents of a neighborhood that is identified as having the potential for growth and development.
According to Ding et al. (2016), in many U.S. neighborhoods that go through gentrification, new inhabitants are mainly white professionals. The arrival of highly earning white outsiders brings about income variations and racial disparities in these neighborhoods (Shaw & Hagemans, 2015). When wealthy white individuals take control over newly developed areas, the most affected communities emanate from African-American, Asian, and Latino racial/ethnic backgrounds. In this concern, Ding et al. (2016) underline that gentrification primarily occurs due to the growth potential of a particular neighborhood and income level disparities between original residents and outsiders.
It is most likely to find individuals with a higher income level such as white professionals and investors taking over newly developed cities after gentrification. Nevertheless, Shaw and Hagemans (2015) assert that the occupation of newly urbanized regions not only involves outsiders but also local residents who have the capacity to utilize opportunities that emerge. Therefore, despite the displacement of a majority of original inhabitants arising from gentrification, newly industrialized areas still depict a degree of racial and income diversity.
Does Gentrification Create Jobs for People in These Areas?
Gentrification is associated with considerable changes in the local employment in the neighborhood undergoing transformation. Various scholars, including Ding et al. (2016), reveal that gentrification is characterized by mixed results pertaining to localized hiring. Some cases depict increased employment of local people while others show reduced job opportunities for locals. According to Ding et al. (2016), indigenous individuals living in an area that is undergoing gentrification may report the lack of job prospects in scenarios where new businesses require more skills compared to what is locally available to bolster productivity.
Companies that outsource labor after setting up operations in a gentrified neighborhood undermine the creation of employment opportunities for original residents, thereby affecting their economic well-being (Hwang & Sampson, 2014). Localized hiring after gentrification is highly dependent on the skills set held by local people. Hence, businesses that strictly consider experienced workers for recruitment seldom create jobs for locals since they avoid the risk of not attaining optimum productivity.
According to Shaw and Hagemans (2015), organizations that have broader hiring networks engage in minimum localized job creation when operating in a gentrified locality. Consequently, this situation leads to the influx of workers sourced from outside the neighborhood experiencing economic changes. Lees et al. (2007) assert that businesses operating in manufacturing and service sectors usually rely on their broad hiring networks to recruit proficient workers. Such a scenario can potentially destabilize the creation of employment prospects among people who have lived in gentrified neighborhoods for a long time, thereby resulting in further income disparities.
The issue of discrimination is also a factor associated with the creation of inadequate jobs for local people in regions experiencing gentrification. An urban area that is under gentrification experiences cultural changes in the form of increased diversity (Shaw & Hagemans, 2015). Nonetheless, wealthy outsiders, usually whites, have been reported to discriminate against minority ethnic and racial groups, especially African Americans, when recruiting employees after establishing businesses in any gentrifying locations (Ding et al., 2016).
Income disparities and racial differences among locals and the arriving outsiders are attributed to the emergence of employment discrimination. Hence, this aspect of prejudice influences the creation of job opportunities for original inhabitants of a neighborhood experiencing the arrival of wealthy professionals and investors from other regions.
In-movers bring about changes regarding the cultural composition of a neighborhood. For instance, original individuals end up being exposed to educated, skilled, and networked residents (Shaw & Hagemans, 2015). Highly educated locals in some neighborhoods are more likely to get jobs in businesses created by arriving outsiders. According to a study by Hwang and Sampson (2014), companies that establish hiring networks in gentrifying areas easily identify talented individuals who can take up open employment opportunities. Hence, as much as a gentrifying neighborhood is composed of highly educated and skilled locals, incoming outsiders who set up businesses consider localized hiring.
Moreover, economic changes arising from gentrification open up opportunities for local jobs. As new businesses and industries emerge in urban areas that experience the influx of outsiders, opportunities in the market arise, thereby allowing locals to seize them as long as they have requirements such as skills and funding (Lees et al., 2007). Additionally, the circulation of information about jobs in a gentrifying area also makes it easy for original inhabitants to make use of such prospects. Ding et al. (2016) reveal that the circulation of information about higher-wage jobs spreads faster among this class of low-income earners who still reside in neighborhoods going through gentrification. In-moving employers who do not discriminate against locals usually foster the creation of different categories of jobs.
Current Residents Maintaining and Staying Afloat During Gentrification
Gentrification in a particular locality influences current residents to employ various strategies for ensuring that they cope with emerging social and economic changes. In most instances, locals usually seek employment opportunities initiated by the economic transformation in their neighborhoods, a typical characteristic of gentrification. As such, despite the existence of racial discrimination in most gentrifying localities, ambitious individuals presently in the gentrified region seek jobs even if they fall in the low-wage category (Hwang & Sampson, 2014).
Educated and skilled current residents also look for jobs to ensure that they maintain and stay afloat amid the experience of gentrification in their localities. Original residents not expecting to be displaced resort to identifying jobs that can provide sustainable incomes proportionate to the cost of living.
Individuals who previously owned multiple properties also consider selling some of them to acquire funds to make more investments in their businesses. According to Ding et al. (2016), family-owned businesses facing competition from the entry of in-moving businesses consider disposing of some of the surplus property to acquire more financial resources to boost the survival of their ventures.
Hence, the use of the available resources to keep up with economic changes occurring in a gentrifying neighborhood is one of the notable strategies applied by original residents to avoid being displaced. Nonetheless, Lees et al. (2007) argue that individuals in a community that is being occupied by outsiders should employ alternative options other than economic strategies to remain productive and afloat, thus mitigating the adversities associated with gentrification. As such, finding social and political solutions to the issue of gentrification is also vital.
Solutions to the Gentrification Problem
The major problem resulting from the gentrification of an urban area is the displacement of the original residents (Shaw & Hagemans, 2015). Remaining in the occupied locality through vitalization can eradicate challenges associated with gentrification. Issues related to racial discrimination with respect to employment among other aspects of life in neighborhoods undergoing gentrification can be addressed amicably, especially when outsiders realize that they have no power to displace original citizens. Consequently, the prevention of dislocation and inequalities due to the influx of wealthy outsiders in a particular locality is a significant solution as far as sustainable urban development is concerned.
Local residents are expected to uphold communication with foreigners to facilitate the attainment of an inclusive society. According to Ding et al. (2016), raising awareness among new neighbors about the history and socio-cultural aspects of the community is a great way of fostering inclusion and mutual understanding. Interactions among original residents and incoming outsiders can go a long way in fostering the exchange of information regarding the traditions of their respective communities. Furthermore, communication can enhance the attainment of an equitable future for both locals and outsiders in a gentrifying neighborhood.
Encouraging policy changes is also a practical way of solving any adversities brought about by gentrification. Hwang and Sampson (2014) underline the importance of advocacy policies and programs geared towards realizing equality and social justice in gentrifying neighborhoods. Such initiatives influence decisions to establish environments that promote fairness amid the existence of diversity and economic changes. Advocacy strategies go a long way in bolstering the sustainability of mixed-income and racially diverse communities emerging from gentrification, thus alleviating any associated inequalities.
Conclusion
Gentrification is a process of urban development whereby wealthy outsiders enter a neighborhood that was previously considered less appealing. This movement results in social and economic changes in the occupied neighborhood. New individuals take advantage of the available cheap property, thereby creating competition that leads to the increased value of material goods. Consequently, the gentrification of a given locality prompts the displacement of poor original residents who experience challenges in terms of securing affordable housing and employment.
As such, rich outsiders are usually the beneficiaries of a gentrifying neighborhood because they use their resources in a way that increases the prices of key socio-economic aspects such as housing. Current residents seek employment or dispose of surplus property to invest and stay afloat in the changing neighborhood. The need for attaining equality and social justice in gentrified neighborhoods calls for the adoption of solutions such as constant communication between original residents and new neighbors. Advocacy campaigns have also been fruitful in solving problems associated with this process because they trigger the implementation of gentrification policies and programs that govern interactions between outsiders and original citizens.
References
DePersio, G. (2018). How much money do you need to live in Miami? Web.
Ding, L., Hwang, J., & Divringi, E. (2016). Gentrification and residential mobility in Philadelphia. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 61, 38-51. Web.
Hwang, J., & Sampson, R. J. (2014). Divergent pathways of gentrification: Racial inequality and the social order of renewal in Chicago neighborhoods. American Sociological Review, 79(4), 726-751. Web.
Shaw, K. S., & Hagemans, I. W. (2015). ‘Gentrification without displacement’ and the consequent loss of place: The effects of class transition on low‐income residents of secure housing in gentrifying areas. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(2), 323-341. Web.
Wile, R. (2018). Here’s how much it really costs to live in Miami. Miami Herald. Web.
Gentrification can be defined as the process of demolition of the traditional, economically dysfunctional and disadvantaged working areas and their consequent restructuring according to the mode of the middle class and the urban elites’ habitat. Gentrification is usually accompanied by the evictions of native residents and a sharp rise in rent and housing prices (Wu 2). This important process occurs in almost all major global cities and continues to gather momentum in the countries of Eastern Asia, including China.
The modern research studies in the field of urbanization and urban environment usually focus attention on the social implications of the phenomena – social mix or violation of original residents’ rights provoked by the removal of urban villages initiated by the state-led process of gentrification.
It is possible to say that gentrification is associated with both positive and negative impacts on the city population. On one hand, commonly perceived in the Western tradition and the human capital theory as a process stimulated by artists’ assembling in particular urban districts and the consequent attraction of public interest, it entails economic growth, refinement of living and public spaces, and the boost of the overall quality of life (Florida 7).
According to the recent research findings, the development of creative “bohemian” local culture entailed by the establishment of performing arts institutions and museums’ opening in such urban areas as Boulder and Fort Collins, Colorado, or Sarasota, Florida, predicted the positive changes including the attraction of property development, as well as employment and population growth (Florida 13).
At the same time, gentrification evokes the issues of social suppression and class division, provision of insufficient political and social support of the disadvantaged population in favor of business services development and estate options supply for the middle and the upper-class citizens. For example, the redevelopment of the Chinese informal urban settlements, such as Gaojiabang and Qiaojiatang in Shanghai, prone to dilapidation due to their disadvantaged economic status and lack of collective resources, resulted in the mass relocation of the original district residents who were displaced by individuals from higher-income social groups (Wu 22).
Such elimination of lower-income citizens from the particular urban areas is induced by the growing tendency of political obedience to urbanization, and this tendency, in its turn, outline and emphasize the shift in the governmental role which contributes to the development of social inequality supported by the clearance of the urban areas from material or human waste and economic deregulation, as well as reduction of investments to social support (Wu 3).
Analysis
To comprehend the effects of changes in individual social status and urban space position, it is important to review the process of gentrification in a broader context, evaluate multiple opinions on the subject in order to form an impartial view of the phenomena (Colombo, Cullen and Lisle 438). The in-depth analysis of diverse sources is meant to develop a profound understanding of gentrification, to reveal the mechanisms of post-industrial working-class restructuring, and evaluate the role of the state as the major source of social-spatial disparity.
As a rule, researchers distinguish two stages in a long-term gentrification process (Wu 3). For example, in a number of Western countries, during the first phase of urban gentrification, poor and dull districts draw the attention of initiative and creative people: artists, poets, journalists, etc. (Florida 8) The potential of this creative people allows them to transform the districts’ functioning and align it towards own interests. As a result, the urban area then becomes more attractive in terms of rent and living. Following the creative initiators of the gentrification process, economically-interested people find their place in the district. At this stage, the real estate market experiences an increase in demand, and the district acquires a more privileged and advantaged status.
In his TED Talk “Art Causes Gentrification,” the artist, Ethan Pettit, narrates about the way the artists contribute to the development of inner cities or villages of the larger urban districts transforming them from the working class zones into the spaces for bourgeois citizens (Pettit). Pettit claims that by creating spatial installations and sharing his/her artworks, an artist “anticipates the gentrified life,” helps to develop the urban design, and refine local infrastructure.
However, while focusing on aesthetical and philosophical implications of gentrification led by artists, he ignores the potential negative effects of the process and its adverse impacts on the citizens who cannot afford the elevated gentrified way of life.
In her interview with “Lumpen Magazine,” Jessi Meliza, the co-owner of “Peanut Gallery” in the Humboldt Park neighborhood of Chicago, describes the gentrification process as a “transitional time…from rentals or homes that people have owned for…25 years to people buying and gutting places” (Gaffin par. 22). Being the live witnesses of these transitional times, the small gallery’s owners have seen the rapid economic restructuring of the district, a drastic rise in prices, and refinement of service quality. As one of the benefits of gentrification in the Humboldt Park district, the gallery owners distinguish a mild local shift in gang violence which, however, “just…moved three blocks down” (Gaffin par. 33).
Thus, the experience of several gentrification initiators in Chicago demonstrates that while the elevation of life quality in one area of the city may be commonly perceived as a positive effect, the mere consideration of benefits can be mistakenly seen as the general improvement. However, it is observed that generalization of gentrification’s positive effects can be misleading because the negative social phenomena, such as crime, cannot be eliminated by it but can only be shifted and moved to other urban regions.
Contrary to most of the Western countries, it is possible to say that gentrification in the Chinese cultural and social context is primarily led by the government and the political climate in the country. Overall, gentrification can be regarded as a localized form of urbanization in the broader sense of the term, and, in China, it is a large-scale process that involves millions of people (Wu 2). As stated by Wu, China experiences a neoliberal shift in the organization of its economic urban space, and it has led to a “more market-oriented approach to urban redevelopment” (4). Overall, the urban economic space serves as a focal point for the stimulation of different production factors, including funds and other resources, supported by the urban functional qualities which ensure a high level of efficiency.
The mobile and substantially conventional frames of the modern urban areas depend on the character of investment policies and priorities identified in the strategic regulation of economic space. The occurrence of urban areas associated with economic activity is the result of capital flow into new, innovational organizational forms, spheres, industries, and the creation of appropriate urban infrastructure. At the same time, the processes linked to demographic, cultural, political, and economic tendencies become particularly acute in urban regions and, in the cities, they find resolving in the development of new market competition and cooperation forms, new points of urban growth that contribute to the transformation of social institutions.
The redevelopment of the traditional Tranquil Light Neighborhood, “an 80-year-old housing compound consisting of 198 three-story row houses,” in Shanghai was motivated by the government’s efforts to preserve the historical heritage and endow it with new economic potential by transforming it into a commercial district filled with “hyper-luxury residential complexes” (Arkaraprasertkul 1).
The old district’s redevelopment had the purpose of preventing the valuable historical structures from deterioration and was aligned with the goal to increase tourist attraction. However, reconstruction provoked a significant demographic change. It is observed that the number of non-Shanghainese inhabitants increased while most of the original residents who lived in the former working-class neighborhood since the 1930s moved to other urban areas (Arkaraprasertkul 3).
As a result, the cultural perception of the Tranquil Light Neighborhood has drastically changed, and the previous social meaning that the district held in itself became depreciated giving way to a new form of market-oriented economic and social values. Although the majority of the neighborhood residents initially were not in the disadvantaged position, the urban restructuring that occurred in the area provides an example of negative gentrification effects in terms of cultural value diminishing in favor of approaching greater financial profits, and if this is associated with both ethical and social implications.
A new wave of Chinese urban redevelopment was stimulated by the organization of such large public international events as the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, 2010 Shanghai World Expo, and the 2010 Guangzhou Asian Games (Wu 7). This new wave of restructuring was associated with intense competition which resulted in the administration of more ambitious projects aimed at “improving housing conditions and the extraction of land revenue” through the adjustment of land use and demolition of the remaining urban villages which are commonly regarded as “informal settlements” inhabited by migrants without the local registration (Wu 7).
In the 2000s, the government initiated the demolition of a large number of urban villages and redevelopment of obsolete industrial parks in Shanghai and Beijing. For instance, the restructuring of Gaojiabang in Shanghai district commenced in 2007 and the native residents were offered either monetary compensation or “ownership swap” (Wu 15). However, the compensation was calculated considering the housing size and condition of the property at Gaojiabang, and since the economic environment in the district was quite disadvantaged, the residents of informal villages usually obtained small compensations.
Nowadays, the poor and dilapidated neighborhood in Shanghai was redeveloped and replaced by modern buildings and facilities. But the initial factor which contributed to the development of urban villages was the state’s inability to provide support for rural migrants (Wu 20).
Overall, the society in different cities and even the districts within one urban area can be characterized by economically advanced, postindustrial, and rural modes of life. It is possible to assume that in some cases, the development of an economically sustainable community can naturally be supported by economic cooperation of different social agents, in other cases, redevelopment and gentrification of economically disadvantaged zones may lead to greater price increases and creation of social gaps between distinct social groups, differentiation of life quality level, and provocation of adverse social phenomena.
It is possible to conclude that both government-led and artists-led gentrification processes may entail some positive and negative social transformations. The potential benefits of gentrification and the development of economic and social space involved in the process include the development of new recreational and cultural urban areas and contribution to urban economic development. The potential disadvantages of gentrification are the state’s privatization of urban land, as well as the increase in service prices which may lead to the differentiation of citizens’ residence zones and disruption of unified social space.
The review of literature devoted to the urban villages’ redevelopment in China and the wave of American artists-led gentrification helped to reveal that the social and economic consequences of the process may substantially vary in different cultural contexts. A high level of property and rights deprivation, as well as suppression of less advantaged social groups and a large number of displaces from the original place of residence due to commercial development of the urban sites and small size of material compensation to original land-owners, make it clear that the political and cultural environment in China is less appropriate for the mitigation of adverse impacts of cities’ modernization and localized urbanization processes.
Conclusion
It is possible to say that government-led gentrification in China is characterized by the use of aggressive redevelopment patterns. However, as stated by Colombo et al., greater awareness of class-related realities in the diverse mass media sources may contribute to the strengthening of national democratic processes (439). And, in this way, to eliminate the potential tendencies of economic segregation and social gaps’ development, the journalists and public organizations should strive to promote the inclusion of democratic methods and principles of compliance into the design of urban and economic redevelopment projects.
Works Cited
Arkaraprasertkul, Non. “Gentrification from Within: Urban Social Change as Anthropological Process.” Asian Anthropology 15.1 (2016): 1-20. Web.
Colombo, Gary, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle. Rereading America: Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and Writing. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins, 2016. Print.
Florida, Richard L. Cities and the Creative Class. New York: Routledge, 2005. Print.
Gaffin, Kyle. “Artists, Communities, & Gentrification: An Interview with Peanut Gallery.” Lumpen Magazine. 2015. Web.
The issue of gentrification has been subject to heated debates with regards to its perceived unfair attitudes towards representatives of marginalized and stereotyped communities who are forced to leave their rental homes so that property owners can create residential neighborhoods for more upper-income citizens. As such, gentrification can be viewed as being directly linked to bias towards representatives of low-income communities who have a history of racial and economic segregation. This paper focuses on the process of gentrification in San Francisco within the context of racial bias and the theory of ‘broken windows’, and how that exacerbates the problem of segregation within American society today. The government, along with developers and property owners, has been caught in abusing the Ellis Act, a law that plays a fundamental role in the process of gentrification by allowing the eviction of tenants to convert apartments into condominiums and renting them out at increased rates to the more wealthy. One of the main conclusions of this paper suggests that gentrification is closely related to racial stereotyping and a lack of respect for the needs of the lower layers of society, especially non-White communities, who are forced to leave their long-term homes in search of more affordable housing.
Introduction
Gentrification is usually defined as the upward change in the usage of land to middle and upper-income residential neighborhoods; in other words, it is the process that creates land space for more affluent users (Paton, 2016). In essence, gentrification captures the class inequalities and injustices of society that emerged from capitalist urban land markets and policies (Slater, 2012). With the increasing burden of housing expenses for working-class and low-income citizens, along with associated issues such as homelessness, eviction, and displacement, the creation of land spaces for the upper classes presents a problem that governments and communities should eliminate. For many politicians, developers, and financiers, the language of gentrification has become unacceptable due to its direct association with the class shift included in the ‘regeneration’ of the city (Slater, 2012). Therefore, there is a need for discussing the reasons for the process itself, how it impacts on society overall, and the housing crisis specifically, the role of the government within the process, as well as how marginalized and minority communities deal with the issue themselves.
Is Gentrification Racist?
Typically, discussions about gentrification are mainly connected with a specific set of players; developers, landlords, tenants that face eviction, and well-off newcomers. However, these conversations usually do not take into account the police and the legal system that also potentially contribute to the marginalization of minority groups that commit petty crimes. Therefore, discriminatory and punitive practices of the police can be seen to aid the process of gentrification, San Francisco is a prime example. One of the indicators that highlight such a phenomenon is the increased number of 311 calls (non-emergency calls during which citizens report quality-of-life issues, such as damaged sidewalks or graffiti). Notably, 311 calls showed an exponential increase in those areas of San Francisco where gentrification had reached its peak (e.g. the Mission District, South of Market, and the Downtown/Civic Center). It is important to note that the 311 emergency hotline was developed for diverting non-emergency calls from 911; nevertheless, the city witnessed an increase in the rate of calls from well-off newcomers reporting poor and homeless citizens in the area. Very often, professionals in gentrified areas call the police when they have a suspicion of marginalized groups committing petty crimes. More often than not, these professionals are prioritized to receive the attention of the police; this results in increased policing in specific areas, and thus the enhancement of gentrification efforts. For instance, although there are a significantly larger number of murders occurring in the African American Neighborhood of Bayview in San Francisco, the murder cases actually seen in court, where an offender was charged, are often from other, ‘gentrified’, regions of the town.
It has also been shown that long-time inhabitants of the mentioned areas tend to call 311 to report loud behavior and the police appear to directly assume that the perpetrators are from the minorities and marginalized communities. Alongside a history of violence towards African Americans, thus, many representatives of these communities develop distrust towards law enforcement. More often than not, the 311 hotlines have been referred to as the policing of order-maintenance used by the majority of police departments, including those of San Francisco. The phenomenon of order-maintenance police efforts contributes to the increase in lower-level crimes (e.g. graffiti or loitering) but decreases the likelihood of more severe crimes. This results in the “broken windows” theory, which is centered on the more aggressive behavior of law enforcement, such as the increased rate of arrests and stops, and shows some correlation with the lower rates of crimes in an area (Harcourt, 2001). At the other end of the spectrum, the theory also proposes that if a broken window is not fixed in time, it will invite more window-breaking and property damage, which, subsequently, will provide a safer space for criminals. As mentioned by Wilson and Kelling, “disorder and crime are usually inextricably linked, in a kind of developmental sequence […] one unrepaired broken window is a signals that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing” (as cited in Stephens, 2014, p. 83). Therefore, the theory of broken windows postulates that any signs of public disorder encourages the appearance of criminal elements in these residential neighborhoods and, thus, increases the likelihood of more severe crimes being committed within these areas.
Hence, the punitive policies of zero tolerance and the reports on the quality of life have become routine for many police departments in San Francisco. Each year, the SFPD makes up to twenty thousand arrests, of which approximately half are for small offenses. Nevertheless, there is little to no empirical evidence supporting the proposal that the broken windows theory works. Arresting more citizens for petty crimes in San Francisco does not seem to affect preventing more severe crimes; although, one could argue heavy policing significantly contributes to criminalization and marginalization of already-marginalized groups of citizens. According to Professor Dorothy Roberts, one of the most challenging tests facing American society is differentiating between lawless and law-abiding citizens based on their race. Many Americans believe that Black citizens are much more likely to be violent and are perceived as dangerous (as cited in Harcourt, 2008). There appears to be a widely held misconception that the criminality of African Americans is a component of the belief systems deeply integrated into the culture of the United States that has a history of Whites being superior to Blacks. Thus, the myth that Black citizens are more likely to be criminals goes back to the roots of American culture that used to support the marginalization of African Americans.
According to the findings of Kelly Welch (2007) in her article “Black criminal stereotypes and racial profiling”, the stereotyping of criminals has become a feature of American culture, and the stereotyping of Black criminals tends to prevail over any other misconceptions. Bias and inaccurate representations of racial minorities in the news and media contribute to the perpetuation of the myth that Latinos or Blacks are much more prone to criminal behavior. There is a disproportionate focus on reporting crimes committed by minorities and exaggerating their severity. On the other hand, offenses committed by White citizens tend to be under-reported and are presented differently. One of the clearest examples of this is when a White person commits mass murders; the entire White population is not blamed for it, nor is there a profile made for the crimes of those people. The media coverage of the offense has a significant impact on the public’s opinions about who commits a crime and triggers biased reactions to the representatives of minorities, which, in turn, could contribute to the increase in rates of minor crimes in gentrified areas. It is crucial to mention that only six percent of citizens of San Francisco are African American; however, they constitute fifty-six percent of the jail population. On the flip side, around forty-two percent of the city’s population is White, but this group makes up only twenty-two percent of all prison residents. Such a disparity can be explained by the biased attitudes of the White and wealthy residents in gentrified areas towards marginalized groups.
The Ellis Act: Abuse of Legislation to Gain Profit
The Ellis Act has also been a contributor to the development of gentrification in San Francisco. According to the Act, landlords have an indisputable right to evict residents in order “to go out of business”, i.e. stop renting their property. However, generally, evictions under the Ellis Act are predominantly used for changing the usage of buildings; for instance, converting rental units into condominiums for wealthier residents. The Ellis Act has been referred to as the weapon of gentrification and is felt to have had a disproportionate impact on marginalized communities and residents of color, as well as those unable to afford the rising prices of San Francisco living. Due to the enforcement of this Act, and because of the loopholes in the law, many have faced eviction. Also, the government did not specify a particular timeframe during which an owner can ‘go out of businesses’, neither did they limit the number of times owners can evict tenants. This is a tremendous problem and, too many are totally unacceptable in dealing with families and individuals’ homes. Moreover, after these renovations and conversions of rental spaces into condominiums, previous residents, inevitably, do not have enough money to rent the new apartments, thus contributing to the housing crisis of affordable homes in the city even further.
Urban developers and investors use the Ellis Act to their advantage: maximizing profit and avoiding confrontations with previous tenants of buildings with no other choice than to free their rental spaces in a search for other apartments or rooms. While the Act is legal, there are many concerns regarding the use of investors and developers, particularly about minorities. According to many reports that have reached the attention of the media, the majority of property owners involved in the moving of old tenants are simply real estate speculators that are trying to turn apartments into an easy profit, even at the expense of those who have lived in the apartments for decades. In many cases, groups of investors are abusing the Ellis Act by combining their forces to buy up a property from owners who have either genuinely gone out of business or have just chosen to sell out. These speculators can evict tenants under the Act’s protection; highly unethical but, unfortunately, legal. Furthermore, it has also been reported that these property speculators abuse the loophole in the law to avoid the moratorium on renovating small apartments into condominiums (enacted for ten years since summer 2013, in San Francisco). Instead, investors establish the so-called ‘tenancy-in-common,’ in which tenants have shared ownership of a building. This means that residents do not possess exclusive ownership of one particular unit, but there is a ‘grey’ agreement that gives every owner a right to use a specific unit exclusively. Recently, the Rent Board of San Francisco has witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of people in rental units who were evicted under the Act. Tenancy-in-common properties are inferior to condominium ownership and are more likely to cause disputes arising from partnerships and co-ownerships. Put simply, neighbors of tenancy-in-common properties can find it much easier to argue with each other. Despite this, the prospective buyers opt for the option of tenants-in-common ownership because of the impossibility to convert residential housing into condos.
Experts advise not to buy out the property since the abuse of the Ellis Act can hurt raising rents and contributing to the housing crisis overall. Here, the following question regarding the use of the Act arises: “Why does the government allow buyouts at all?” There is a significant difference in what the owner of a property can decide to do in cases when a tenant accepts the buyout or is evicted under the Ellis Act. If the property owner chooses to evict, then there is a requirement to pay relocation fees with additional charges in cases when a tenant is elderly or disabled. If the property owners decide to rent out the housing unit, they are required to offer it to the original tenants at a controlled price (for 5 years). Thus, in cases when tenants agree to take the buyout, which is typically twice as high as the relocation fee, the owners of the property are allowed to rent out a housing unit not at a controlled, but a market rate, without offering it to previous tenants.
On the other side of the debate, some experts say that it is also unfair to limit the opportunities for those property owners that use rentals as an opportunity to make money. In cases where there is a tremendous shortage, prices can rise through bids, with no limit to how much these prices can increase. Thus, there is no point in blaming the investors who sought to gain a profit based on long-term investments. The abuse of the Ellis Act remains an issue, even though it is also the only tool readily available to property owners to exercise any control over those tenants that refuse to leave their rented apartments. For those tenants who reported that they had been forced to abandon their long-time apartments, there is a need to consider the human effect within the whole process of eviction. Many experts believe that the Ellis Act has become a dangerous trend that is killing the unique housing landscape for which San Francisco has received praise. The landscape is beginning to die out, and the government should not let this happen since it destroys neighborhoods and, thus, destroys the lives of those living there. There are fears that over time, only certain generations and races of citizens will be able to afford new housing in gentrified areas, which opposes the idea of diversity fundamental to American society. For many tenants that have lived in San Francisco for decades, gentrification, along with the enforcement of the Ellis Act, means that they have to leave their city because the rent prices are too high. As wealthy tenants move in, less fortunate tenants move out, leading to enhanced marginalization of the already marginalized communities of San Francisco.
The issue remains whether the government will do something to limit or completely stop the evictions under the Ellis Act or conversions of the tenancy-in-common housing. Most importantly, it is unknown whether the actions of the government and tenant activists will withstand the scrutiny of the legal system. It is crucial to remember that the Ellis Act is a state law and the rights of tenancy-in-common housing are supported by the federal legislation of the United States.
Role of the Government in Contributing to Marginalization and Segregation
Understanding the issue of gentrification is impossible without understanding the role of the government in contributing to the marginalization of certain societal groups and aiding the wealthy and fortunate on the higher steps of the social ladder. From the very beginning of the development of the United States, neighborhoods have constantly evolved, with citizens moving in and out, buildings being destroyed and renovated, amenities being removed, and added. However, at the beginning of the twentieth century, American neighborhoods started experiencing segregation due to the mass migration of African American populations. Most notably, the economic separation of communities has shown a steady increase since the beginning of the 1970s and was closely associated with racial discrimination, i.e. the segregation of income was growing more quickly among Black families compared to White families, as mentioned by Lichter, Parisi, and Taquino in their article “The geography of exclusion: Race, segregation, and concentrated poverty” (2012). Such increases in income segregation were especially noticeable in wealthy neighborhoods. Theorists of public choice have long been associating economic segregation with the preferences of consumers for specific public services such as schools, parks, and transportation. As different areas in cities provided those public services at various levels, consumers with similar economic backgrounds were attracted to different areas. Nevertheless, the causality of this phenomenon remains understudied because it was the government’s policies that contributed to the development of preferences and the free market. Therefore, the transportation policies that supported the usage of automobiles, along with other policies that reinforced the ideas of segregation, severely limited the choices of marginalized and disadvantaged groups and lay the foundations for future marginalization practices, such as gentrification.
It is also important to take into account the fact that the income segregation of neighborhoods within the areas of major cities was directly linked to income inequality; particularly higher wages for the top layer of the society and the lack of jobs for the bottom tier. Consequently, the inequality of revenue causes income segregation because the highest incomes, alongside government-enforced housing policies, allow a particular set of households to satisfy their preferences, disregarding the continuing political processes that favored the exclusion of marginalized communities, especially the representatives of the African American population. Therefore, if income inequality stopped decreasing, the number of segregated neighborhoods could drop.
According to the study conducted by Owens (2012), the following neighborhoods have shown some sort of upgrading in recent years: minority urban, diverse urban, affluent, new White suburbs, no population, upper-middle-class White, booming, and Hispanic enclave neighborhoods. Nevertheless, the cause of these upgrades remains unknown, and there is a lack of empirical evidence that may suggest that the upgrades were associated with economic and racial changes in neighborhoods with low incomes. With regards to gentrification, the government played the role of the supplier at local, state, and federal levels. In this context, the government is seen as a contributor to the political economy of the country that is trying to acquire a profit by using, managing, and developing the land. On the other hand, experts have linked gentrification to the historical patterns of racial and residential segregation of specific areas in large cities. The proponents of this opinion underline the role of governmental policies in developing an inequitable distribution of resources by class and race across the U.S. metropolitan areas. It can be concluded that the process of gentrification represents the efforts of the government, targeted at differentiating between the wealthy and the poor. To look at the process of gentrification from the perspective of racial transition, the evidence of this connection is scattered. Nevertheless, researchers found evidence supporting trends such as the movement of affluent Whites into poor neighborhoods where non-Whites live; this influenced a drastic change in the racial composition of some neighborhoods.
Impact of Gentrification on Marginalized Communities
The process of gentrification in the United States has become a problem for the minorities of lower-income. Even though gentrification had an impact on the improvement of some economically deprived Black and Hispanic Neighborhoods, the majority of them remain profoundly disadvantaged and marginalized compared to the White middle-class neighborhoods. The study conducted by McKinnish, Walsh, and White (2010), highlighted the impact of gentrification on the representatives of the African American community based on the level of education. The researchers concluded that educated Blacks usually benefited from gentrification; furthermore, a third of the increase in the income of gentrifying neighborhoods appeared to originate from the progress and development of that same demographic, which might be unexpected. This finding could, in effect, make gentrifying neighborhoods more in-demand for Black families on a medium income. Nevertheless, gentrification has a severely negative impact on the less educated majority of Black families.
Displacement of residents is a tremendous problem in those areas where gentrification seems to be occurring at an uneven and often accelerated, pace. In cities such as San Francisco, the risk of displacement has reached a disproportionately high level, with many communities being put in danger of complete displacement, an even larger issue in those bigger cities, with the accelerating pressure for living in urban areas. Because such cities attract more and more new businesses, corporations, and big developers, the demand and cost of housing increases significantly, and directly impacts on low-income households who cannot afford to pay any more. This results in the mass movement of whole neighborhood residents seeking affordable housing.
It is also important to mention that those areas that have not been touched by gentrification cannot report an improvement in the level of poverty. In reality, the displaced households are getting pushed away from the neighborhoods that are considered good enough to attract investment from middle-class families, but the poorest, and the most marginalized neighborhoods, remain surrounded by poverty.
Conclusions
Gentrification has become a symbol of the scarcity of resources provided within the urbanization. Along with the lack of governmental efforts to create more inclusive cities that accommodate all citizens regardless of race or income, marginalized communities are experiencing unfair evictions by developers and investors, supported by the Ellis Act, who use this law to get rid of old tenants and develop the property to fit the needs of wealthier citizens. Apart from contributing to the further marginalization of minorities, such as African Americans citizens or low-income families (the two characteristics can often coincide), gentrification plays a significant role in exacerbating the crisis in the housing sector, where new apartments are created and renovated to be sold or rented to wealthier members of society, leaving those less fortunate no other choice than to look for more affordable housing or leave the area altogether.
Due to racial segregation and stereotyping, people of color suffer from gentrification the most; this is particularly the case in the instances of enhanced policing that actively looks for petty criminals in the areas, ‘preying’ for Blacks that have been heavily criminalized. Gentrification, thus, ties in with the “broken windows” theory that implies the aggressive behavior of law enforcement. As many citizens, especially Whites, associate crime with African Americans and Latinos, many gentrified areas (especially in San Francisco) have shown an increase in 311 calls in which people report ‘quality of life’ crime in their area.
The Ellis Act is another significant contributor to the issue of gentrification; the law enforced by the government allows developers and property owners to evict tenants of housing units to change the usage of those units and offer them to more affluent citizens. The abuse of the Act is unethical, although it is not considered illegal – it remains the only tool in the hands of property owners that want to acquire a profit at the expense of their less fortunate tenants. Overall, gentrification is a process that exacerbates the housing crisis in San Francisco and can be seen to directly force many marginalized and stereotyped communities to look for new places to live.
References
Harcourt, B. (2001). Illusion of order: The false promise of broken windows policing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Harcourt, B. (2008). Against prediction: Profiling, policing, and punishing in an actuarial age. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lichter, D., Domenico, P., & Taquino, M. (2012). The geography of exclusion: Race, segregation, and concentrated poverty. Social Problems, 59(3): 364-88.
McKinnish, T., Walsh, R., & White, T. (2010). Who gentrifies low-income neighborhoods? Journal of Urban Economy, 67(2), 180-193.
Owens, A. (2012). Neighborhoods on the rise: A typology of neighborhoods experiencing socioeconomic ascent. City & Community, 11(4): 345-69.
Paton, K. (2016). Gentrification: A working-class perspective. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Slater, T. (2012). Gentrification of the city. In G. Bridge & S. Watson (Eds.), The new Blackwell companion to the city (pp. 571-585). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing.
Stephens, B. (2014). America in retreat: The new Isolationism and the coming global disorder. New York, NY: Penguin.
Welch, K. (2007). Black criminal stereotypes and racial profiling. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23, 276-287.
