Category: Gentrification

The people of Harlem indicate that the gentrification proposed for the region will lead to a hike in house rent and their displacement. This shows a great need to establish strategies that will help ensure that the proposed developments do not disadvantage original residents. The establishment of new zoning and house laws will help to ensure that the native residents of Harlem are not displaced from the region due to a lack of affordable housing. All community members have to be included in the program to enhance its effectiveness. The program seeks to ensure that the proposed developments in Harlem lead to the prosperity of the native residents and the newcomers.

Components of the Community Needs Assessment

The people living in Harlem face a gentrification problem that leads to the socioeconomic displacement of businesses and residents who earn a lower income. It is challenging for the primary residents of Harlem to live in their original neighborhoods since the new people in the region often make them feel unwelcome. Many people from Harlem are against the idea of turning the town which they considered historical and culturally significant, into a modern town (Dollars & Sense, 2020). The people do not want their culture and history to be erased due to the various proposed development projects.

Gentrification in Harlem is likely to lead to the closure of up to seventy-one businesses owned by African Americans. Original residents of Harlem also believe that gentrification will attract rich people, which will lead to a significant increase in rent (Gorrild et al., 2019). Harlem people believe that an increase in house rent will make it unaffordable for them, thus forcing them to vacate. The proposed project will address the need by utilizing conflict transformation to address the gentrification problem in Harlem. Conflict transformation will help eliminate cultural and structural pitfalls that have resulted from gentrification.

Goals of the Program

One of the program’s main goals is to prevent the harmful effects of gentrification. Even though there is a need to develop Harlem to raise its standards, the process should not lead to the displacement of original residents. One of the strategies that will enhance the achievement of the goal is the establishment of new zoning and housing laws (Williams, 2020). Zoning laws make it very hard to find affordable housing, thus displacing people who do not have enough resources. This indicates a great need to establish laws that will help create affordable housing for the people of Harlem.

Another goal for the program is ensuring that the development established in Harlem benefit the legacy residents and business and not those seeking entry into the city. In this case, it might be necessary to negotiate with new investors for community benefits agreements which will help to ensure that legacy residents benefit in the long run (Tol, 2019). A loan fund can also be established to enable small entrepreneurs to purchase their buildings.

Program Evaluation Type

An appropriate program evaluation type for the proposed program is process evaluation. The evaluation method has the primary purpose of exploring the various features of the implementation process of a program. It also plays a significant role in helping to assess reliability, adaptability, and the quality of the implementation process (Scott et al., 2019). The program evaluation type can also help assess the different factors that can influence program outcomes. This can help to inform on necessary adjustments to enhance the chances of program success.

It can also help identify factors that facilitate or act as a barrier to program implementation. This can help to inform on necessary improvements to overcome the identified barriers. In this case, the evaluation method can identify the failure or success of interventions initiated in a project. It also helps assess the different services delivered through a program, those who benefit, resources used in the process, and encountered problems (TSNE, 2018). In this case, process evaluation can gauge whether an organization can deliver on projected outcomes.

Program Evaluation to Determine Outcomes

The type of program evaluation that can determine the projected program’s outcomes is outcome evaluation. The evaluation mode is a process that helps measure the final result using a systematically conducted assessment (Bhasin, 2021). A defined set of standards guides the process. It can assess how the knowledge and resources lead to outcomes and benefits that outweigh the costs. This can help to inform strategies on how to utilize available resources to enhance the possibility of positive outcomes in the future.

The evaluation method is effective for the desired project since it focuses on the outcomes of a program and not its implementation. According to Boothroyd (2018), outcome evaluation also helps assess the effect a program has on its participants. In this case, outcome evaluation will play a significant role in identifying whether the desired program will positively or negatively affect Harlem’s native people. It is also effective in informing long-term plans and decision-making processes. In this case, the process can inform the direction that a program is to take based on the identified outcomes.

Ethical Considerations

An ethical consideration to have during the development and implementation phase of the projected government program is confidentiality. In this case, all the information gathered from the participants in the course of the program has to be kept confidential. Confidentiality during program implementation helps build trust with the participants and the program members. The information generated through the program should only be shared with relevant individuals to ensure that participants’ privacy is protected.

Consent is another ethical consideration while developing and implementing the desired government project. It is necessary to obtain participants’ consent to share their information with others to enhance program implementation (Rabinowitz, 2022). Community members have to consent to the program implementation in their region. When developing and implementing the desired government program, it is necessary to consider ethical disclosure. In this case, the program’s staff must share the various conditions that define the program with the participants. Such conditions can include the various policies about privacy, available services, and the desired time limit. This helps participants to make informed decisions on whether to participate in a program or not.

Diversity and Inclusion

The program will partner with the community and faith-based members as one of the culturally sensitive approaches to address issues that might result from diversity and inclusion. This will help ensure that Harlem residents are familiar with the various initiatives that the program seeks to eliminate the problem brought about by gentrification. Partnering with community and faith members who are well known to the residents can help eliminate perceptions that the program’s proposed changes are forced by external actors (UNFPA, 2018). Community and faith members will enhance the possibility of the native residents accepting that the program is designed to help them. Such people can also help overcome the cultural barriers that are likely to face during project implementation.

It is also necessary to identify areas of collaboration to ensure that the native residents and the newcomers have common objectives concerning Harlem. In this case, it might be necessary to utilize evidence-based approaches to enhance the effectiveness of collaboration. Using evidence-based approaches will help convince the residents that the various initiatives being undertaken by the program aim to benefit them. In this case, they are likely to collaborate during the program’s implementation process and enhance the chances of success.

References

Bhasin, H. (2021). Outcome evaluation – Meaning, strategies, characteristics, advantages & limitations. Marketing91. Web.

Boothroyd, R. (2018). Process and outcome evaluation approaches. Web.

Dollars and Sense. (2020). A disappearing landscape: Gentrification transforms Harlem. Cuny.edu. Web.

Gorrild, M., Obialo, S., & Venema, N. (2019). Gentrification and displacement in Harlem: How the Harlem community lost its voice en route to progress. Humanity in Action. Web.

Rabinowitz, P. (2022). Choosing and adapting community interventions: Ethical issues in community interventions. Ku.edu. Web.

Scott, S. D., Rotter, T., Flynn, R., Brooks, H. M., Plesk, T., Banner-Martin, K. H.,… & Hartling, L. (2019). A systematic review of the use of process evaluations in knowledge translation research. Systematic Reviews, 8(1), 1-10. Web.

Tol, V., J. (2019). Yes, you can gentrify a neighborhood without pushing out poor people. The Washington Post. Web.

TSNE. (2018). Process evaluation vs. outcome evaluation. TSNE. Web.

UNFPA. (2018). Culturally sensitive approaches. United Nations Population Fund. Web.

Williams, M. (2020). How to protect longtime residents from the harms of gentrification. Business Insider.

It should be noted that the chosen topic for the activity is “gentrification”. It has been selected because it is controversial and there are many supporters and opponents of it. This implies that the research on the topic will be revealing and insightful and may change the point of view of the author in the course of the investigation. Gentrification is a process in which a change in the property system occurs and when a richer group of the population invests in the territory (Franz, 2015). Thus, following the new needs of the higher-income group, the development of the area occurs. On the one hand, this approach is beneficial for all residents and for the city in general since consistent development may be observed. On the other hand, the city becomes accessible to its residents to varying degrees (Gould & Lewis, 2017). The author of this paper supports the second position, and the thesis statement is developed based on the opposing opinion. It is as follows: despite the positive aspects of gentrification, it is necessary to understand how it should proceed in order to make the territory inclusive.

To develop the thesis statement, the writer first researched general insights into the topic using the suggested readings. Then additional research was carried out to comprehend the controversy surrounding gentrification (Franz, 2015). After that, the author of this writing took the side of people opposing gentrification that is not inclusive in character, which allowed narrowing down the thesis statement to the necessary degree. It is expected that, in the course of carrying out research, the writer may open up a new perspective on some aspects of gentrification.

References

Franz, Y. (2015). Gentrification in neighbourhood development: Case studies from New York City, Berlin and Vienna. Göttingen, Germany: V&R Unipress.

Gould, K. A., & Lewis, T. L. (2017). Green gentrification: Urban sustainability and the struggle for environmental justice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gentrification is a process that involves the change of residence among the middle class to areas that were occupied by the working class (Causes of Gentrification n.d). These movements lead to dislocation of the low income residents together with their business enterprises. Sociologically, people live in a society which is socially stratified.

The movement of middle class to new residences leads to the development of these areas. Historically, towns have developed through displacement of low class people by the middle class. For example, the developments of urban centers like Harappa and Mohenjo Daro in the Indus valley of Mesopotamia due to agricultural activities, revealed massive displacement of the low class from the Indus valley leaving it for the middle class who could afford to live by the living standards.

Therefore, gentrification changes the social status of any given region economically, culturally, and politically. The mass movement of people can cause housing and health problems to the local inhabitant who could not afford to continue staying in these places. In addition, there is a notable change in the lifestyle of various individuals.

This process of relocation has various factors that support its occurrence. These causes can also be referred to as forces. A case study of the city of Oakland revealed a change in the economy of the world after World War II led to job losses among the working class.

The West Oaklanders depended on this as their source of livelihood. Therefore, this occurrence made them more vulnerable to displacement by the wealthy merchants. Moreover, West Oakland residents lacked investment in transit and schools; this made them marginalized and could not access employment.

The residents highly relied on automobiles; therefore, their absence made it impossible for them to access commercial centers in the developed suburbs. This inequality in development was enhanced by the wealthy group who could own automobiles. West Oakland, therefore, became open for gentrification. This was due to massive developments in the well equipped regions that had low population density. The government policies at that time also favored developing such regions.

Developments in these regions led to growth of industries thus occupying vast pieces of land, which were occupied by the middle class (Causes of Gentrification n.d). This step resulted to movement to regions like West Oakland that had the poor as the majority. West Oakland had problems with controlling their economy, which was unstable; they also had cheap real estate due to inequitable development programs by the government. As a result, gentrification became an inevitable factor.

Neil Smith’s theory of production asserts this phenomenon; it relates money and production. The low rental houses in the outskirts of urban centers made merchants move from inner city to these areas after World War II. Simultaneously, capital movement to these new areas became inevitable.

This scenario led to increase in land value in the suburban areas and consequent decrease in land value at the inner city. This analysis revealed a larger rent-gap. Smith argues that this difference made developers rethink on rebuilding the inner city thus leading to higher mortgages from the high profits attained. Clearly, there is an upgrading of the inner city’s neighborhoods. Further, there is the population and demographic backgrounds. This aspect analyzes the rapid growing population between the ages of 25 to 35.

These people increased demand for houses. For instance, in London, the high demand during 1984 saw the recycling of cities cope up with the high demand. These new crops of people were young, singles and talented with good jobs in the city. They got married late and had fewer children than their predecessors. Notably, the females were also getting into the workforce; this led to increase in household earnings (Causes of Gentrification n.d).

Some took a long time before getting children, and with continued influx led to search for alternatives away from the inner city. This baby boom generation preferred staying close to their workplaces. This scenario led to invasion of neighborhoods to look for space to accommodate the new generations who preferred living closer to their work stations. Markedly, these groups had little concern for school and conditions of playgrounds as they had no children at early ages.

Another cause for the change in lifestyle can be attributed to belief and attitude change among the middle and upper class that opted to live in urban areas to rural and suburban. These groups of people preferred living in the inner city with the pioneers. The increased movement in the 1970s led to congestions in the inner city, thus making the middle class look for alternative residences at the suburban where the low class people were staying.

There is also the political reason behind gentrification. In this point, there are two advances, the traditional and Marxist. The traditional perspective argues that the alterations in the political systems in 1950s such as desegregation and anti-discriminatory laws at the workplaces made different races move into the city. This led to movement to suburban lands and estates which further facilitated the movement into the inner city.

On the other hand, the Marxist dimension denies the view that political and economic factors as perceptible in facilitating the gentrification process, but purports that such acts are intentional. That is a powerful group designs a policy of neglecting the inner city, but when they become aware of the benefits that the inner city occupants enjoy, they forcefully displace the powerless residents to suburban regions hence gentrification.

Moreover, there is the Consumption theory argues that the consumption blueprint among the middle class is the main cause for gentrification (Chelcea 2006). Therefore, the theory focuses on what a group consumes to determine the ability to occupy a new residential area.

David Ley argues that market nature does not affect gentrification; for instance, gentrification accommodates changes that occur due demands that arise from a given generation. The gentrification process, therefore, occurs with the urban pioneers like artists moving in to redevelop potential areas.

Later, the complete refurbishment leads to rise in prices of houses, health facilities and taxes hence outclassing the local residents. The middle class, then, moves in this displacing the low income earners. Afterwards, the upper and middle income earners demand better services forcing alteration in business strategies consequently increasing prices. The continued increase in prices phases out the remaining low class hence more middle and upper class merchants come in leading to a continuous process of gentrification.

This process of displacing a group of individual from their areas of residence and consequent building of better houses has numerous impacts that range from the economic to the cultural front. In the economic front, property owners receive high incentives for venturing in the low class regions (CDC – Healthy Places – Health Effects of Gentrification 2012).

World governments view such developments initiatives as a positive approach in improving the economy. At the same time, the developers will realize increased values for their properties. That is the middle class will be willing to rent the new houses at a higher price than the low class residents. The increased property rates can also stabilize a shaky economy among the players. In addition, local governments’ record increased tax outputs from the new businesses set in such areas.

This change through gentrification can attract further developing firms into such areas thereby increasing the overall economic growth. Further, people are well positioned to own homes in such arrangements thus stopping to stay in rental houses that are common in inner cities. On the other hand, gentrification phase out retail chains together with the low income earners.

The social aspect is a broad subject that analyzes displacements and social changes. Forceful displacement of the low class is a negative effect of gentrification which can lead to homelessness. These people are forcefully displaced from their historical habitats. Those who decide to remain experience a high increase in the prices of basic services hence can be termed as exploitation of the local inhabitants.

Additionally, gentrified people lack political and economic power to demand their rights as they are unable to meet the new targets (Abrahamson 2004). Again, there is loss social diversity with the coming of the middle and upper income earners. These groups of people are always reserved; therefore, little engagement in societal issues that bring people of different races, religions and ethnic groups together.

Global cities, on the other front, have a global network that affects their operations. These cities have an economy that depends on each other. Cities like Frankfurt, Chicago and Toronto have concentrated their economic activities in certain parts of their cities (Abrahamson 2004).

Notably, there exist similar chains that exist in all these cities, for example, The Coca Cola Company, MacDonald Fast Food chains amongst others. The set up in these cities favor settlement of high income earners. For instance, the flow of capital into these cities mostly targets commercial and financial centers thus leaving small scale businesses.

In addition, the low class cannot withstand the tax levy in the cities; this makes them move out of the city to look for some locations which are favorable. The global economy also alienates the middle income earners from inner city to search for alternative settlements which are only available among the low class in suburban regions. The global cities have a network of economy that links their daily operations such that an effect on one city will automatically be felt in other cities and to the whole world.

For instance, the relationship between Moscow and Illinois economy was evident in 1998 when GUM mall in Moscow underwent financial problems. The Germany’s Dresner Bank accepted to lend GUM $10 million and by 1997 GUM’s liquid assets reached $30 million. When GUM started experiencing some financial challenges, businesses in Thailand also started recording negative turnovers, unemployment and inflation was a common issue.

This situation prompted the locals to change their currencies to US Dollars at any exchange rate. This trend continued until the value of Thailand’s currency begun to decline. The Hong Kong’s stock market, later, felt the effect by recording a loss of 23% of their stock value within a period of four days. This market shock continued until in 1998 when the New York, Brazil and Mexico’s stock markets all recorded a one-day loss. Afterwards, GUM merchandised products lost value in Illinois US.

Modern colonization took effect mostly during the Industrial revolution where Asia and Africa colonization took centre stage. Powerful colonial masters were extending their influence in the name of market expansion. Bourgeoisies like Cecil Rhodes avoided social revolution by foreseeing colonial conquest. By 1800, the inequality ratio rose to two to one due to massive polarization.

Currently, the ratio has jumped to 60:1; this implies that a paltry 20% of the world population can access the beneficial system. The liberation movement that took place after the Second World War saw the start to an end of colonialism and the European expansion trend (Chelcea 2006). This expansion, between 1500 and 1950, marked the initial development of capitalism where there were two aspects of living styles among the world population.

For example, in the 1960s, chief executive officers of American large non-financial institutions were earning an average of $190,000 which was over forty times the earnings of a factory worker. In 1980, the CEOs could take home over $2 million, 93 times the pay of an industrial worker. Clearly, the drivers of an industry are the factory workers, without which the industry cannot operate. Ironically, the inequality practised gave them less recognition for their tireless efforts.

Later, social arrest came up, where the workers made the US environment extremely hostile as they were demanding equal treatment just like the bourgeoisies. The bourgeoisies, on their part, felt that implementation of equality will make them lose their workers hence reduction in the profit margins. Evidently, the entire world’s population lives different lives thus prompting dissatisfaction among the low class in the society.

The economic difference that was pioneered by the powerful forces is a form of discrimination of liberty and other fundamental human rights like rights to own property (Sassen 2005). Attempts by the low class to institute social and political equality have been met by strong resistance among the upper class and the economically endowed continents. These nations fear that should other nations become economically empowered; their control over such countries will fade.

For instance, the numerous American companies that were set abroad between 1980 and 1990 could experience low customer base and even the decrease in the number of employees as they will own their own firms. It is this dominance of the US industries overseas that makes it difficult for US to accept the idea of economic globalization. In addition, the massive cost of investment that the US incurred in furnishing these industries will not be regained with the economic globalization phenomenon.

On the other hand, citizens are provided with variety of products which are of high quality due to competition. This type of economy also makes it possible for movement of people all over the world to seek for good employment terms. The former colonialists argue that this free movement also increases networks of terrorism into the countries; a situation that destroy their economy. Further, they argue that such free movements enhance the spread of diseases like HIV/AIDS.

The call for correction in the livelihood of all individuals globally constitutes economic globalization. This aspect also ensures that production of goods and services are made to be similar world over. For instance, US citizens can start purchasing clothes made in China and vice versa and even obtain vehicles made in South Korea. This reveals the globalized nature of the economy where freedom of choice is not restricted and all nations appreciate the technology and works of each other.

Gentrification encourages the development of new high and middle income areas world over. This scenario makes it possible for a continuous and uniform replication in different parts of the world hence leading to a similar economy (Sassen 2005). The similar economy is facilitated by setting up of similar chain store like food stores in these upcoming suburban areas.

This process will actually create a globalized economy that is uniform from the onset. Moreover, office congestion in the inner city will force other individuals to move out to the outskirts of the city center. This scenario will encourage decentralization of services and development in the world.

A global city like New York can experience massive reduction in criminal activities that are related to low class actions (Sassen 2005). Through gentrification, the movement of low class individuals will be fostered, and this will increase the space for developing new residential homes for the middle class around the city.

In addition, there will be an increase in the number of large and middle scale corporations that will be willing to invest in these new areas. Consequently, the overall economy will rise alongside increased employment opportunities and reduced inflation.

References

Abrahamson, Mark. 2004. Global Cities. New York: Oxford University Press.

CDC – Healthy Places – Health Effects of Gentrification. 2012. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web.

Causes of Gentrification. n.d.. The On-Line Conference on Community Organizing. Web.

Chelcea, Liviu. 2006. Gentrification, Property Rights and Post-Socialist Primitive Accumulation. Academia, 1. Web.

Sassen, Sakia. 2005. “The Global City: Introducing a Concept.” Brown Journal of World Affairs, XI (2), 27 – 42.

Introduction

Urbanization has been linked to human economic and social development and progress, as these urbanized areas provide exciting opportunities for growth and renewed lives. It is also evident that urbanized areas are faced with complex economic and social challenges that have risen in recent years. These challenges and opportunities have created important tasks for policymakers to develop long-lasting solutions. One of the major economic problems facing cities is gentrification and displacement. This occurrence creates conditions for the displacement of people as it raises the cost of living in a particular area. This paper examines the causes of urban renewal in America generally, its effects, assess the policies to deal with the problem, and possible solutions.

Overview

Gentrification involves urban development whereby a city neighborhood develops quickly in a short period. This is caused by an influx of middle-class or wealthy people. These people rebuild and build new homes and businesses that make an area that was once undesirable become desirable. This will result in an increase in property values, housing prices, and rent. New businesses and social amenities come in place to cater to these newcomers. These changes attract even more and more people to settle. As property value and prices go up, the original, usually poor tenants and owners are forced to leave and go to more affordable neighborhoods, thus becoming displaced. Displacement, therefore, is the involuntary movement of persons away from their homes or home region.

Various types of displacement occur in gentrified neighborhoods. Direct displacement occurs when residents cannot continue staying in their homes due to rising house costs. Indirect displacement is when one goes to reside in a neighborhood as a low-income resident vacates that same neighborhood. Low earners cannot stay because of increased rents and sale prices when low earners leave. There are some discriminatory policies, such as changes in land use, that push people from these areas. Cultural displacement happens when the size of residential change improves. Services become focused on new residents, and the neighborhood’s character transforms, making the remnants in the area feel isolated despite them remaining in the neighborhood.

Problems of Gentrification and Displacement

Gentrification becomes a problem because it either forces or prevents low-income families from shifting to previously affordable neighborhoods. It can completely transform the culture of a place and even change the name of an area (Sakran 219). It compels the original residents to vacate their homes through increasing property prices, coercion, or buyouts. In some cases, there is discrimination against the poor by the rich or the powerful, and its primary focus is on the spaces that do not involve low-income earners and people of color. Additionally, it causes negativity from the poor toward the rich. It has exacerbated racial as well as economic tensions across many American communities. Racial relocation caused by redevelopment is sometimes compelled by situations rather than by legislation. Political authority is eroding as new local leaders begin to disregard the demands of the existing long-term citizens. These remaining inhabitants retreat from civic involvement and may eventually depart the region physically.

Causes of Gentrification and Displacement

Several factors contribute to gentrification, among them is family structure. Many double-earning couples who have children in old age are moving to cities. Young and wealthy people with no children are moving into gentrified places. This is because these areas provide many services that satisfactorily serve this population. Rapid job growth facilitates gentrification in that jobs wanted by the young wealthy workers are found in cities. Cities are becoming important service centers full of financial businesses, law firms, insurance companies, and high technology employers. These are typically white-collar jobs offering very high payments. Neighborhoods around cities become desirable as they offer wealthy people shorter commuting routes. As they settle in these neighborhoods, they become gentrified.

Current Policies

At the local government level, policies encourage the rich people to obtain or renovate old homes and neighborhoods with low-income people. The rich, for instance, are given a tax deduction that enables historic preservation and environmental improvements, which motivate gentrification. Similarly, government initiatives designed to lower mortgage loan interest rates in underprivileged areas enable purchasing a property in these redeveloped districts more appealing. Furthermore, federal public housing reconstruction initiatives that encourage replacing dwelling units with less densely inhabited, more varied single-family housing have considerably aided redevelopment in areas with failing housing projects.

Attitude, preference, and cultural changes have contributed to this problem. More people strongly prefer old houses that have character and delight found chiefly in central cities (Clerval 1055). As wealthy homeowners occupy them, old houses get fixed, changing the neighborhood’s beauty, and extra businesses come up to be of service to these new residents. This beautifies the neighborhood, thus attracting wealthy potential homeowners. More like-minded people will be attracted to the place as it begins to gentrify, accelerating the regeneration process.

Some policies have been formulated at the local level to help deal with the issue of gentrification and displacement, for instance, using anchor institutions maximally to make them influential tools for fair development. Anchor establishments, such as health facilities, colleges, and other entities employ locally accessible procuring and hiring strategies to retain employment and income in their areas. In Richmond area, Virginia, for instance, the health system of Bon Secours has committed community monies in the Community Land Trust of Maggie Walker.

Nonprofit entities, such as controlled equity residential development, restrict the amount of capital that a participant may acquire via the sales of a house. This has contributed to the housing fund’s long-term stability. For years, the model has given financial assistance and opportunities to enable persons to get homes on a shared ownership basis, although they are limited (Hackworth 49). The Cooper Square Mutual Housing Association is an example of the LEHC model established in New York. It was led by the Cooper Square Committee, a coalition advocating for anti-displacement. Credit unions and other society development monetary institutions can provide credit equitably to support the locals and businesses owned by minorities usually sidelined in financial opportunities, for example, the credit union on New York City’s East Side. These unions also extend financial service choices to unsecured loans and predatory debt traps, hence their preference for bank loans.

Nongovernmental organizations have formed the Community Land Trusts, which are understandings between a community and a nonprofit organization to guarantee that long-term housing is affordable. They buy land and lease parts to individual persons or families at fair prices, separating the cost of buying land from the cost of housing. Residents are disallowed to sell these homes to make high profits ensuring that CLT can keep homes affordable for future residents. An example is the Oakland Community Land Trust, which secured the West Oakland home together with Moms 4 Housing. It proves how the CLT has been used to advocate against real estate investment that pushes black residents out of their homes and neighborhood. The city sells its insignificant vacant plots to developers to construct middle-income house units. This, however, has really not been sufficient to avert dislocation brought about by gentrification.

Shortcomings of These Policies

These policies will work well if political goodwill, capacity, and the needed resources are readily available. The federal government, for example, has shrunk investments in affordable housing, limiting its supply in low-income communities. Restrictions on land development and exclusive zoning practices have made it difficult for markets to produce affordable houses for low-income earners. Zoning focused on single family and detached family homes keeps the population density low in these areas as it restricts the number of people that live in a certain area. Jurisdictions also make development decisions based on revenue rather than community needs. Significant scale developments like hotels, stadiums and big retail stores attract people from across the region. These developments directly displace community and culture-based businesses of African American communities.

Proposed Policies

The problem of gentrification and displacement can be dealt with by considering some recommendations. The government can build income and assemble necessary support to ensure economic improvement in the neighborhood and the well-being of residents. It should provide essential services such as childcare, transportation, access to health, and a retail sector (Phillips 79). Again, there should be a reduction in taxes imposed on the property to protect long-term residents. Big cities consider these programs to retain homeowners living in areas considered to be at-risk. It is possible that forbidding extensive luxury improvement in at-risk localities can help deal with gentrified displacement. Governments ought to encourage small as well as medium scale, diverse income development in risky neighborhoods and prohibit extensive scope development. There is a need to build middle-class housing for those who cannot afford or buy houses.

The government can include the community in the planning and zoning of their communities. This planning process must be transparent and include the elderly and low-income residents. Community services should be developed or retailed for low-income residents, for example, medical services, housing, training, and job programs (Versey 709). It can purchase development rights for buildings or homes from low earners or enlist nonprofit organizations to purchase, manage, or preserve buildings or homes of these low earners. The gentrification process is inevitable; therefore, these proposed solutions will help lessen its harmful effects on affected residents.

Conclusion

Gentrification is beneficial as it creates more development and rapid economic investments, supports consumption and entertainment projects, and increases resource allocation to schools and stores. It negatively impacts the population as forceful displacement fosters discrimination from those in power or the wealthy and excludes the poor and people of color. As of 2018, 10 percent of low-income households lived in areas considered at risk or undergoing redevelopment. The above phenomenon occurs in towns and cities across America, but it is pronounced in Washington D. C., San Francisco, and the California Bay Arena. Just under 10% of all areas in California’s Bay region are classed as at risk or having preliminary or extensive urban redevelopment. Few San Francisco neighborhoods are classed as gentrifying but rather as steady, modest income.

Works Cited

Clerval, Anne. “Displacement: Cause and Consequence of Gentrification”. Urban Geography, vol 42, no. 8, 2021, pp. 1054-1057. Informa UK Limited.

Hackworth, Jason. “Gentrification as a Politico-Economic Window: Reflections on the Changing State of Gentrification”. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, vol 110, no. 1, 2018, pp. 47-53. Wiley.

Phillips, Martin, et al. “Replacing Displacement in Gentrification Studies: Temporality and Multi-Dimensionality in Rural Gentrification Displacement”. Geoforum, vol 118, 2021, pp. 66-82. Elsevier BV.

Sakran, Joseph V. “Gentrification in America – The Potential Deadly Consequences”. Annals of Surgery, vol 274, no. 2, 2021, pp. 218-219. Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health).

Versey, H Shellae. “Older Women Causing a Ruckus: Gentrification, Displacement, and Tenant Advocacy”. Innovation in Aging, vol 4, no. Supplement_1, 2020, p. 709. Oxford University Press (OUP).

Gentrification happens when the old buildings and districts are demolished for a purpose to build new and better areas more suitable for a wealthier population such as the middle class and elite. During the Gentrification, the native dwellers of the reconstructed districts are displaced. The new areas are more expensive in terms of prices for houses and rent. Besides, this process has significant social effects that I would like to discuss further.

First of all, gentrification is viewed as the result of the attraction of the creative groups of the population to the older and poorer districts. The arrival of artists, journalists, and many other types of visionaries gives a push to the development of the deteriorating parts of the city. Their activities attract businesses, elites, reduce crime rates, and facilitate culture and education. These tendencies sound like a positive effect, but one should not forget that such negative aspects of city life as poverty and crime cannot be fixed by the cultural development and reconstruction. Instead, they are simply moved to some other parts of the city and continue to affect many people.

Another cause of gentrification is the decision of the government. This is the case when it comes to gentrification in China. This process is put into practice as an intentional urbanization and due to a large population of the country, always involves millions of citizens. In China, gentrification is implemented through policies and reforms directed at the creation of higher density in the urban population which leads to the increase in rent and housing prices and to the displacement of the low-income groups of the population to the rural areas. However, such areas may also be exposed to redevelopment. For instance, many villages were demolished for the construction of new infrastructure and readjustment of land for profit. In most cases, the displaced populations are compensated for such actions of the government, but the compensations are unfairly small and the new houses – worse than the previous ones.

When gentrification is implemented for a purpose to get rid of the low-income population and create better opportunities for the upper and middle classes, this process results in the increase of income gaps between the rich and the poor and the growing dissatisfaction of the latter. The social tension increases with the government’s privatization of the rural lands. In China, where the population is huge, the process of gentrification that simply masks the disadvantaged groups of people moving them away from developing areas is not a clever way towards the improvement of social wellbeing. The groups of depowered people grow in their sizes and require a smarter solution to the residential and economic problems.

To sum up, the gentrification initiated by the Chinese government is a very superficial way of improving the country’s economy. It is based on the replacement of poorer districts with business-oriented buildings and infrastructures. These actions are effective in terms of attraction of investments and businesses, but they also create a higher rate of poverty and social dissatisfaction due to the unfair treatment of the low-income groups of the population. This measure can be characterized as unethical from the side of the government authorities in charge of redevelopment. Gentrification in China requires a smarter strategy that would improve the way of living of the rural dwellers instead of just ruining it.

Introduction

Historical decisions and policies of the United States and Los Angeles have led to the uneven development of its neighborhoods, which is especially noticeable today. Famous areas such as Pacific Palisades, Hollywood, Beverly Glen, and Beverly Hills have theaters, restaurants, hospitals, schools, and malls that satisfy the needs of any person. Thus, real estate in these areas has high prices according to its convenience and features.

Other areas, such as South Los Angeles, face overcrowding, poor housing conditions, and remoteness from essential infrastructure but have cheap rent and houses. However, the gentrification process has also led to creating neighborhoods in transition, where architecture and infrastructure are being updated, and property prices rise. At the same time, many residents of such areas are forced to move due to an increase in rent for their housing, which they cannot afford.

One such area is Highland Park, which has become a popular area for gentrification due to its favorable geographic location and cheap property prices. However, news of recent years has shown that the neighborhood’s architectural features have become one of the important incentives for residents of Highland Park to resist gentrification. For this reason, this paper will examine the geographic and architectural features of Highland Park to examine their impact on the anti-gentrification protests and social tensions they have caused.

Geographical and Social Features of Highland Park

Highland Park is located in Northeast Los Angeles and has initially been its first suburb, although it is not far from the center. This area is usually referred to as the East Side both because of its location and due to the historical composition of the population (Fig.1). Hispanics, Latinox, and African Americans who could not buy or rent a house in the “white areas” were allowed to settle in these territories (Guzman 13). Highland Park is bordered by Highway 110 and the Eagle Rock and Pasadena neighborhoods and has the LA Metro Gold Line, from which anyone can reach the city center in 35 minutes (Kamin). This location is convenient for most residents who cannot afford housing in the central areas.

Another feature of Highland Park is its historicity and diversity of architecture. In 2010, the Garvanza area was added to the territory of the neighborhood, and today Highland Park-Garvanza encompasses approximately 4,000 structures from the 1880s to 1940s (“Highland Park – Garvanza”). Consequently, while some of these buildings are protected by law as historical monuments, others are attractive for people who want a unique home for life or business. At the same time, residential buildings are also comfortable and practical, although they often require renovation, which makes them valuable for buyers and tenants.

The convenient planning of Highland Park also allows residents to freely move around the streets on foot or use personal and public transport. This feature makes the neighborhood convenient for tourists to visit, create attractions, and open restaurants.

An essential aspect for understanding the geography of an area is its population. Most of the inhabitants are Latino people (72,4%), while the percentage of the white population began to increase only in the 2000s, along with the gentrification processes (“Highland Park”). In addition, the inhabitants of this area are mainly workers and artists with a low level of income, since the cost of renting and buying houses is several times lower than in the central or coastal areas. For example, in 2019, single-family homes’ average price was $829,000 (Kamin). However, over the past decades, this value has also increased several times, which gradually began to affect the composition of the population.

However, the main feature of Highland Park is the murals that cover the neighborhood’s walls. Most of them were created in the early 2000s and are of particular cultural value for the residents of the neighborhood. Highland Park is predominantly inhabited by Latino people, who moved to this neighborhood mostly in the 1970s and 1980s, since this area was neglected and cheap. For this reason, murals reflect the cultural values and beliefs ​​of the local population. For example, one of the most famous murals was the image of an Aztec warrior (Gumbel, “‘Whitewashed’”). Other examples of similar murals are depictions of migrant workers, indigenous peoples of Canada, America, and Mexico, or folklore stories (Fig.2.). Such murals are the adornment of the neighborhood and the pride of locals who honor their culture and traditions.

Reasons for Gentrifications

Highland Park is not the only Los Angeles neighborhood going through a gentrification process. Other areas, such as Boyle Heights, Silver Lake, and Eagle Rock, have also become targets for renewal; however, Highland Park has several advantages. Firstly, this neighborhood lies between the central districts and Pasadena and has access to the highway, which allows residents to quickly get to work or entertainment in the central area or Westside. In addition, the Golden Metro Line that connects Highland Park and the city center makes travel easy and comfortable for tourists. Downtown residents will also have easy access to Highland Park to visit some of the neighborhood’s unique and historic sites.

Secondly, Highland Park is built in such a way that it allows people to walk the streets and places with active traffic, which is not available to Boyle Heights, through which three highways pass. The historic architecture and murals in Highland Park’s streets also create a distinct ambiance and creative vibes that locals and tourists like. For this reason, it is profitable for business owners to buy and renovate Highland Park houses to replace the old stores with trendy coffee shops and restaurants that will attract visitors. In addition, low property prices is​​ a typical non-geographic reason for gentrification; however, this fact applies to all areas. Thus, while the main reason for gentrification is usually the cheap cost of real estate, Highland Park is a favorable neighborhood for modernization because of its convenient location and architectural features.

Anti-gentrification Protests as Social Tension of Highland Park Neighborhood

A feature of the gentrification of Highland Park and other areas of the East Side is that most residents perceive them as a process of displacing people of color. More than 70% of the Highland Park population are Latino people who have low income, and gentrification forces many of them to leave their houses as their landlords increase their rent several times (Madans; Gumbel, “L.A.’s Hottest Neighborhood”).

Families are forced to move to remote areas on the outskirts with more affordable housing and travel several hours to their workplace. At the same time, even those residents who own their houses do not always benefit from new “hipster” restaurants because they often cannot afford a $5 coffee but have to pay higher property taxes. Consequently, the majority of Highland Park residents protest against gentrification, and their aggression is directed against the “white hipsters”, since predominantly white buy their houses (Gumbel, “L.A.’s Hottest Neighborhood”). Simultaneously, this aggression causes a reaction among the new residents of the area, which creates tension and racial conflicts.

At the same time, some studies explore the process of the East Side gentrification and conclude that this process is not just a desire to modernize the city but whitening projects. For example, Guzmán claims that racial displacement is not separate from gentrification and that its primary goal is to prepare neighborhoods for white families. Although this statement can be argued and overcome in some matters, general tendencies of people of color displacement and protests in Highland part, in particular, confirms it.

Another similarity of Highland Park tension and researches findings is the manifestation of protests. Highland Park’s anti-gentrification movement’s peculiarity is that it rarely causes direct confrontation, but people express their disagreements through art and street signs. For example, people of Highland Park neighborhood ruin new murals made by “hipsters” and create new ones with a specific context against gentrification, and renovate culturally important street art that was whitewashed (Gumbel, “‘Whitewashed’”). The same methods were used by the inhabitants of Pilsen Hispanic District, Chicago, to collectively resist economic and racial oppression through its art (Luiggi). Therefore, the peculiarity of tension in Highland Park is that the architecture and geographic locations are its cause and weapon at the same time.

Influence of Murals on Social Tension

While many authors’ researches demonstrate that gentrification is socially and racially unjust, many of its supporters can deny this fact. Unlike Crow’s law, which prohibited people of color from settling in certain areas, gentrification does not officially imply action against non-white races or ethics. For this reason, most governments encourage gentrification as it brings development and tax revenue to their cities.

However, more often, the authorities do not take into account the interests of people who are forced to leave their homes due to the renewal of their neighborhoods. Consequently, Highland Park residents may claim racial and social injustice but not always can provide evidence. Nevertheless, the destruction and whitewashing of murals, which have historical and cultural significance to the neighborhood, are compelling reasons for the protests.

An examination of Highland Park murals, which have been whitewashed or may soon be erased, demonstrates that their destruction implies political nature. For example, John “Zender” Estrada’s mural of an Aztec warrior flanked by two eagles was whitewashed after purchasing the building (Gumbel, “‘Whitewashed’”). Other murals created by famous local artists were also replaced with something more politically neutral than depicting controversial issues of migration or Native Americans or turned into advertisements. At the same time, Los Angeles has a 2013 law that protects murals of historical and cultural value; nevertheless, the whitewashing continues (Gumbel, “‘Whitewashed’”).

For example, the mural Tenochtitlan, created by nine artists, is under threat of destruction, as the new owners of the building want to make two windows in it (Gumbel, “‘Whitewashed’”). Thus, although murals are formally protected by law, the gentrification processes and the need to change the buildings lead to the removal of historical monuments. Consequently, a significant part of Highland Park residents opposes the creation of new expensive cafes and restaurants, since this means for them not only an increase in rent but the destruction of their culture and feature of the neighborhood.

Moreover, while the deliberate erasure of murals that carry political and ethnic context is difficult to prove, Highland Park residents often perceive such change as an attempt to drive Latino people out of their neighborhoods. Such beliefs are generally logical, since most of the murals are the work of professional artists and street decorations. Hence, these artworks should attract visitors who have a healthy attitude to the US population’s diversity.

Consequently, people can conclude that murals and graffiti have political implications and signs of attempts to displace people of color from Highland Park. This fact is confirmed by the word “Displacers”, which someone wrote over the mural, which replaced the Frank Romero-esque heart (Gumbel, “‘Whitewashed’”). Thus, whitewashing murals in Highland Park and spoiling their replacements are symbols of tensions that have racial nature. Locals resist changes in rental prices and injustice caused by erasing their culture from the historic Los Angeles neighborhood.

Conclusion

The main problem and social tension of the Highland Park Neighborhood in recent years have been the gentrification of the area. This issue has created latent racial conflict and tensions between old and new residents and new business owners in the neighborhood. Although the influence of geographic reasons and the architecture of the area is not evident at first glance, they have great significance in the initiation and development of the conflict.

First, the geographic features of Highland Park, together with its architecture and cheap real estate, make it an advantageous area for gentrification. Highland Park is located near the center, has highway access, and is connected by the subway, which makes it convenient for locals and tourists. At the same time, some of the neighborhood’s architecture is of historical importance, and the Highland Park development plan creates a unique atmosphere for walking and relaxing. In addition, the low-cost real estate and creative vibes of Highland Park make the neighborhood attractive for business people and artists looking to open their restaurant or art gallery.

However, the main feature of Highland Park is the murals, which have historical and cultural importance to most of the neighborhood’s residents. These murals and street art most often depict the stories and myths of the indigenous people of the Americas and its tribes, the ancient civilization of the Aztecs and Incas, or migrants. Since most of the neighborhood’s residents are Latino people, they perceive these murals as part of their Highland Park affiliation because they relate to their cultural part of identity. For this reason, mural whitewashing, which is the result of gentrification, is a motive for many locals to oppose these changes.

The fight against the modernization of the area and for the preservation of murals for many of the residents of Highland Park is also an opposition to racial injustice, since Latino families are primary victims of Highland Park gentrification. These families are displaced from their homes to the city’s outskirts because they cannot afford the rent available to potential white tenants. For this reason, as part of Highland Park architecture, murals are an opportunity and a means of highlighting the injustice of gentrification as the process of moving people of color out of their homes.

Works Cited

Gumbel, Andrew. “L.A.’s Hottest Neighborhood is Where the City’s Existential Crises Have Come Home to Roost.” Los Angeleno.2020. Web.

Gumbel, Andrew. “‘Whitewashed’: How Gentrification Continues to Erase LA’s Bold Murals.” The Guardian. 2020. Web.

Guzman, Jaime. The Whiteness Project of Gentrification: The Battle over Los Angeles’ Eastside. 2018. PhD Dissertation. Electronic Theses and Dissertations.

“Highland Park – Garvanza Historic Preservation Overlay Zone.” Los Angeles City Planning. Web.

“Highland Park”. Los Angeles Times. Web.

Kamin, Debra. “Highland Park, Los Angeles: A Watchful Eye on Gentrification.” The New York Times. 2019. Web.

Luiggi, Christina. “Who Have You Displaced Today?”: “Haciendo Caras” as Collective Resistance against Gentrification en Pilsen Hispanic District, Chicago. Ray Browne Conference on Cultural and Critical Studies, 2018. Web.

Madans, Hannah. “Hip Hooray: Highland Park Has History — and Property Prices — on Its Side.” Los Angeles Business Journal. 2020. Web.

Introduction

Gentrification is not a new process. Very much have been said in regard to gentrification but still, there exist some variations in its discussions. For this reason, it is a concept that has drawn a lot of attention from different directions, each party having the need to have a deeper understanding about it.

Gentrification can be defined as the process of buying and renovating of buildings/ houses located in the depreciated urban neighbourhoods by the upper and middle income individuals and families. This is aimed at improving property values although it has a negative effect of displacing the poor or the low income families and small businesses.

It could also be termed as “ the process…by which poor and working-class neighbourhoods in the inner city are refurbished by an influx of private capital and middle-class homebuyers and renters….a dramatic yet unpredicted reversal of what most twentieth-century urban theories had been predicting as the fate of the central and inner-city.” (Slater 2002). This piece of work looks at the aspect of gentrification with much emphasis being given to the different perspectives that have been brought forward in regard to gentrification.

Different Perspectives of Gentrification

There are various perspectives of gentrification. Gentrification has been associated with an increase in the average level of income per individual and an average decrease in family size in the society. All in all, the process of gentrification does not adhere to the principle of equality between the poor and the rich but rather tends to widen the gap between them.

For this reason, the following aspects are linked with gentrification; poor living standards of the low income earning people thus they are unable to sustain themselves, for instance, through paying increased rents and taxes. Displacement is however the main negative effect of gentrification.

A positive contribution of the process of gentrification is that it enhances economic development which in turn helps in the reduction of poverty and crime levels, increase in the prices and values of properties as well as an increase in revenues collected from tax (Atkinson and Bridge 2005).

Urban gentrification is associated with bringing about change in the nature of culture characterization. It brings about a more economically homogeneous society eliminating the character of culture heterogeneity. Over the years, the aspects linked with gentrification have significantly changed.

The changes are attributed to a variety of factors some of them being, urban consolidation that have been brought about by compact city policies, economic streamlining and state intervention in various issues for instance the development of brown field sites through the housing demand of the new middle class (Freeman 2006).

In order to understand the concept of gentrification in a better manner, it is good to look at the various perspectives or approaches that, in one way or the other, tend to bring about the origin and causes of the spread of gentrification. Some of the perspectives that I will look at include; the socio-cultural, the political and economic, the demographic and ecological, the social movements as well as community networks perspectives.

The social-cultural perspective of the process of gentrification is based on the argument that aspects like beliefs, values, attitudes, choices and opinions are most suitable in the explanation and prediction of human behaviour as opposed to populations’ characteristics such as demographics.

This approach therefore emphasizes on the changes in lifestyles and attitudes of the upper and middle class of the late 20^th century. These individuals became more urban oriented and thus avoiding the rural lifestyle. There were therefore movements into the cities as they were viewed to be more favourable. This led to formation of inner city. Criticism of this perspective is that the existing values determine people’s decisions to live as opposed to the changing values (London and Palen 1984).

The demographic and ecological perspective explains gentrification through the demographics which includes technological advances, population and social structure and the environment. This perspective focuses on the increase in the number of people of (25-35 years) towards the end of the 20^th century.

Due to the increase in population, there was a rise in the demand for housing. As a result, cities were restructured to cater for the demand. This generation was relatively different in terms of demographics, for instance, they did not get married early and they opted for few children. Women were also involved in men-related jobs. This lifestyle promoted living in the cities to be closer to job areas (Lees 2000).

The other approach of gentrification is the political-economic perspective. This is divided into traditional and Marxist views. The traditional view is based on the fact that political and economic attributes contributed greatly to the invasion of the inner-city.

Political changes led to gentrification of neighbourhoods. Another aspect that led to the invasion of cities is the insufficiency of rural land and increase in housing cost. Marxist approach tends to disagree with the traditional view. It states that interests groups became interested with the cities once they realized they would gain something from it; revenue. This led to the displacement of the poor.

Community network is the other perspective of gentrification. The community is regarded as a powerful and interactive social unit capable of initiating changes. According to London and Palen (1984), there is the community lost and community saved perspectives. The community lost point of view states that small-scale and less powerful local community is replaced with large-scale powerful societies.

The difference has been brought about by advancement in the telecommunication sector as technological advancement is witnessed. The community saved on the other hand asserts that revitalization of neighbourhoods as a result of gentrification results into an increase in community activity.

The social movements approach centres on ideologically founded movements particularly with respect to leader-follower ties. The approach argues that the individuals who are more into gentrification do that due to encouragements they get from leaders to revitalize the inner city. Those who do not support gentrification on the other hand are the poor and less powerful and hence oppose gentrification practices in an effort to gain some powers and voice (Bounds and Morris 2006).

Conclusion

From the above discussion, it is evident that the issue of gentrification is very wide and complex. This has led to a lot of controversy in the way the issue is discussed with some individuals and groups supporting it fully while others are against it, stating that it is disadvantageous.

There are different perspectives of gentrification each bringing about different but related ideas. The variability of the processes involved has for instance led to lack of a commonly agreed definition of gentrification. The issues involved are related to economic, social, political as well as cultural concepts.

Reference List

Atkinson, R and Bridge, G. 2005. Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism. New York: Routledge

Bounds, M. and Morris, A. 2006.Second Wave Gentrification in Inner-City Sydney. Cities, Vol. 23, No. 2, p. 99–108

Freeman, L. 2006. There goes the ‘Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up. Philadelphia, PA, Temple University Press

Lees, L. 2000. A Reappraisal of Gentrification: Towards’ Geography of Gentrification. Progress in Human Geography 24, 3 (2000) pp. 389–408

London, B. and Palen, J. 1984. Gentrification, Displacement, and Neighbourhood Revitalization. New York, SUNY Press

Slater, T. 2002. What is Gentrification? [Online] Web.

Introduction

Gentrification is a massive phenomenon that affects many modern cities in advanced countries. However, although the process of this phenomenon leads to reconstruction, the methods used threaten the life of the inhabitants of the block. Thus, gentrification is best described by severe economic instability followed by changes in the area’s population (Sutton, 2020). This paper aims to review the challenges that gentrification brings to Harlem, NYC, and explore the proposed solutions through SWOT analysis.

Discussion

The most noticeable manifestation of this phenomenon is the significant increase in the cost of housing. As Versey (2018) demonstrates, most Harlem residents surveyed knew people who were forced to move due to increased prices. These people had low incomes, and this phenomenon has the most impact on the working class, who cannot live in the reconstructed area due to the changed costs. While Versey’s (2018) study did not show that Harlem’s gentrification increases homelessness, the lives of many poor and vulnerable residents are significantly worsened. These groups include older people who are at risk of social and economic exclusion.

In addition, gentrification significantly affects the area’s economic and social life. On the one hand, attracting new investments to Harlem provides an opportunity to create new jobs. However, the possibility of their creation is due to the disappearance of up to 71 traditional enterprises, which makes room for new investments, but affects almost a thousand workers. (Gørrild et al., n.d.). Gentrification also threatens the educational process, as the relocation of families will reduce school enrollment (Mordechay & Ayscue, 2019). Finally, the most striking problem in the context of Harlem is the change in the racial composition.

This area of Manhattan is famous for its black population, which significantly influenced the entire African American culture as part of the Harlem Renaissance. From this perspective, Harlem is a cultural center, and its existence without an African American population is impossible. However, recent research shows that even middle-income African Americans face the need to relocate (Sutton, 2020). Thus, this phenomenon poses a threat to African-American culture in general.

Several programs and proposals are aimed at combating the identified problems. To protect the older generation, it is proposed to organize specialized senior centers already planned by the New York administration (Versey, 2018). This approach has significant strength in the form of legislative support, which can significantly influence the situation with the relocation of the older generation. However, this requires the accountability of policymakers, which can become an internal weakness due to their inability to respond to existing problems quickly. Opportunities are represented by various external social organizations that use their influence to attract the necessary attention. The threat to this initiative is characterized by large business companies that can realize their interests in Harlem with the help of corporate power.

Since this approach only targets the senior population, it is not very effective, as shown by the SWOT analysis. An alternative option is to increase the education and organization of the residents of Harlem themselves to resist gentrification (Williams, 2020). The strength of such an initiative is the propensity of the working population and especially African Americans to jointly defend their rights. However, the weakness is the need for a significant increase in economic and social education, which is insufficient for the target audience. Community organizations such as the Community Movement Builders and Right to the City can help deal with this as positive external opportunities (Williams, 2020). In this context, the threat remains the same, in the form of various corporations, but external risks are significantly reduced with the support of social movements.

Conclusion

Therefore, the gentrification of Harlem is a potentially dangerous process that can change the area’s economic, social, and cultural life if left unchecked. There are a limited number of decisions and initiatives that can change the course of events. However, as the SWOT analysis showed, the involvement of civil society organizations, education, and the formation of organized resistance from the working class can significantly reduce the dangers of gentrification. This option is the most promising and effective in this context due to its substantial positive aspects.

References

Gørrild, M., Obialo, S., & Venema, N. (n.d.). Gentrification and displacement in Harlem: How the Harlem community lost its voice en route to progress.Humanity in Action. Web.

Mordechay, K., & Ayscue, J. B. (2019). How gentrification by urban millennials improves public school diversity.Bloomberg. Web.

Sutton, S. (2020). Gentrification and the increasing significance of racial transition in New York City 1970–2010. Urban Affairs Review, 56(1), 65-95.

Versey, H. S. (2018). A tale of two Harlems: Gentrification, social capital, and implications for aging in place. Social Science & Medicine, 214, 1-11.

Williams, M. (2020). Gentrification doesn’t have to force minority residents out of their homes. Activists say there are 3 ways to protect communities. The Insider. Web.

My essay uses appeals to emotion and logic to the greatest extent. Since the City Council of Baltimore, as the primary audience, is an official body that uses a rational approach to decision-making, logical validation of the solution is particularly persuasive. On the other hand, the council members are the people who care about their communities and citizens, especially children who represent future generations. For that matter, in supporting point one, it is argued that the trust will allow for investing in the future by reducing citizen displacement of current and future generations. Long-term investment returns appeal to logos, and the reference to the displacement of future generations is a pathos that ignites an emotional response, which should encourage the rational decision to support the solution.

Introduction

Gentrification as a means of improving underprivileged neighborhoods has negative consequences for low-income populations residing in such areas. The National Low Income Housing Coalition (2019) states that “an exclusionary effect of gentrification is the high cost of rents that force low-income households to move to lower-cost neighborhoods with fewer resources” (para. 14). Such a devastating outcome of gentrification endangers the safety and opportunities for prosperity and wellbeing of such vulnerable populations as children, racial minorities, and the elderly. Therefore, to solve this problem and preserve equality in the urban areas of Baltimore, Maryland, the City Council should initiate a community land trust to provide the underprivileged with an opportunity to own their property. The opponents of such a solution might refer to the overall advantages of gentrification for the citizens. However, since increased rental fees lead to poverty in vulnerable populations, gentrification is a source of discrimination and inequality. Thus, it is imperative to establish a community land trust, which will eliminate the problem of citizen displacement, provide opportunities for business growth, and promote racial equity.

Conclusion

In summation, this essay has demonstrated that gentrification has significant long-term adverse outcomes for the underprivileged communities of Baltimore due to the need to relocate to low-income areas because of increased rent costs. Such a far-reaching and commonly under-addressed problem requires an immediate solution to prevent vulnerable populations from further suffering from poverty and improper housing. To solve the negative implications of gentrification in Baltimore, the City Council is strongly advised to establish a community land trust that would allow the urban residents at risk of displacement to own their property. Although gentrification policies are claimed to have significant benefits for the urban areas, the overlooked issue endangers vulnerable populations by leading to racial inequality. For that matter, the City Council should urgently initiate the trust to ensure that the future generations of urban citizens live in a safe, economically developed, and non-discriminatory environment.

Reflection on Feedback

When working on Assignment 2, I used the Instructor’s feedback provided for me after Assignment 1 completion. The overall feedback appraised my justification of the identified problem related to gentrification and emphasized the need for narrowing the issue related to gentrification in the urban areas. For that matter, when incorporating the feedback, I changed my initial writing in two ways. First, I narrowed a general problem of disadvantages of gentrification to only one, namely the discriminatory implications of the forced displacement of low-income residents. I researched the problem more and rewrote my supporting points to achieve this. Second, to strengthen the justification of the problem, even more, I incorporated more quotes that demonstrate the adverse outcomes of gentrification for underprivileged communities.

Reference

National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2019). Gentrification and neighborhood revitalization: What’s the difference?