Gentrification: What does it really do?
Jeffrey Knowles | Tue, Jul 15th, 2008 | Category: Commentary | Tags: gentrification, starbucks, lower-income minorities, jeffrey knowles
After looking at data in over 15,000 neighborhoods, researchers from University of Colorado at Boulder, Duke University and University of Pittsburgh say gentrification is not as devastating to lower-income minority communities as commonly thought. In fact, some demographic groups, like high school educated African-Americans, have a tendency to remain in gentrifying areas much more frequently than in other areas. Furthermore, it isn’t just college educated whites under 40 without children who are the agents of gentrification—it turns out college educated African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely to move into gentrifying areas than other stagnant neighborhoods.
Gentrification is a barrier for conscientious planners who want to revitalize distressed areas. Is it possible to give small businesses and lower-income residents the tools to build a stronger presence in the city’s economy, and at the same time block certain sources that may contribute to that improvement? In essence, the process of shepherding economic revitalization to closed outcomes takes the form of the mythical Ouroboros, the snake that eats its own tail. This is not to say that the unregulated free market can be counted on to produce shared beneficial results either. Some residents are undoubtedly left behind as new, more affluent neighbors begin affecting area rents and property taxes. It is in the public interest to mitigate those negative effects by creating Community Land Trusts and working with the local tax assessor to promote neighborhood diversity as part of the cultural and economic health of the city. But to suggest that lower-income areas of a city would be better served by allowing them to languish sounds criminal. And to restrict certain classes and races from mixing smacks of apartheid.
So, if gentrification and economic revitalization are shown as more closely one in the same and displacement is not a widespread effect, is it merely a matter of misinformation that makes gentrification the bogeyman, or is the real problem the manner in which neighborhoods revitalize? Is the debate really a form of social NIMBYism directed at young urban professionals—the accused agents of gentrification?
Using gentrification to bemoan yet another homogeneous Starbucks is a shallow assessment that completely manipulates unrelated concerns. Instead of permitting one group to speak for another on the issue of displacement, an honest conversation should be had about setting a responsible path for economic revitalization. Neighborhoods may soon welcome gentrification as long as it brings a sustainable mixture of retail choices that serve a racially and economically diverse clientele—the mark of a healthy neighborhood.
Jeffrey Knowles is a Masters of City and Regional Planning candidate at University of Pennsylvania.
bph in New York
Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 5:14pm
Interesting, but the Time article leaves a lot of questions unanswered. First, I’m not sure the NBER definition of gentrification is comprehensive enough because gentrification behaves so differently in different places. Also, in some places $10k in ten years is a lot, other places (New York, for example) not so much. Given that the 1990s saw the largest peacetime economic expansion in history, it may be that a rising tide simply lifted all boats. Another question: is ten years long enough? Some neighborhoods are entirely made over in ten years (the Lower East Side of New York, for example), while others advance at a much slower pace (El Bario in New York is just beginning to show some of the classic signs of gentrification...Incomes and housing prices in South Boston, Massachusetts have been rising slowly but steadily over the last 20 years-- though the period from 1995-2005 saw some acceleration).
So, like Tolstoy’s unhappy families, all gentrifying neighborhoods are gentrifying in their own way, which is what makes Mr. Knowles’ rather platitudinous post a little disconcerting. The suggestion that opponents of gentrification argue that “lower-income areas of a city would be better served by allowing them to languish” is a straw man if I’ve ever seen one. And Mr. Knowles seems (at least by my reading of the Time article-- I haven’t yet read the actual study) to misinterpret one key point, which is, as Mr. Knowles writes, that “displacement is not a widespread effect,” when the 2005 Freeman study observed that “lower income residents tended to move out of gentrifying areas at essentially the same frequency they left other neighborhoods.” Which is to say that poor people are displaced at the same rate everywhere--so, maybe gentrification doesn’t cause displacement of lower income people, but it certainly takes advantage of their instability and the lack of affordable housing stock in cities.
I would also mildly object to Mr. Knowles’ tone, which at times seems paternalistic and disconnected from the lives of “natives” in transitional neighborhoods. When a neighborhood begins to gentrify, longtime residents get scared-- scared of losing their homes, scared of their rents rising, of their neighbors leaving, of their neighborhoods changing. Whether or not these fears are entirely justified, and proposing to “give small businesses and lower-income residents the tools to build a stronger presence in the city’s economy” seems an all too ethereal response for what is a very real problem-- and not just to low income people, but in New York, where neighborhoods in Manhattan can transition from middle and upper-middle class to hyper-wealthy, for middle class urban professionals too.
Let’s take the studies and the statistics with a grain of salt. Every place gentrifies/revitalizes/changes differently, and the best, most “conscientious planners” are almost always informed residents who care about the future of their neighborhood.
Patrick
Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:10pm
Is it possible to give small businesses and lower-income residents the tools to build a stronger presence in the city’s economy?
You might be interested in seeing Bob Lupton’s comments on how to help residents in low-income neighborhoods find a stake in the neighborhood before gentrification begins. He works for a Christian community development organization and has been working in low-income neighborhoods for 30 years.
Lonny Stern in Austin, TX
Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 2:46pm
First, I think that “gentrification” is an outcome of redevelopment and revitlization rather than an actual city policy in and of itself. If we can first get neighborhoods to realize that good planning involves programs that reduce the effects of development in their area, we could get beyond the one-sided argument that all development in under-served areas is “gentrification.”
In addition, I thought I would mention some other tools beyond Community Land Trusts that are being employed here in Austin:
1) Tax Freeze for the Elderly—Those of retirement age can have their property taxes frozen at current levels so that they are immune to rising property values due to new development in the area.
2) First-time Homebuyer Assistance—Development leads to gentrification when renters are displaced because of rising rents and property values. If the City provides downpayment assistance or helps to develop “affordable” housing in the neighborhood for purchase only by qualified lower-income families, it helps to keep long-time residents in the area as well as secure their financial future by transitioning them from renters to owners.
3) “Silent” Loans—in booming neighborhoods that are at risk for gentrification, the City can work with existing residents to help them become homeowners. First, they assess an applicants “ability to pay” (roughly 33% of monthly income) for housing. Then, the City provides a “silent” loan for the remaining amount of the home value above and beyond their “ability to pay.” If the house is sold, the “silent” loan comes due at 0% or a very negligible interest rate. But, as long as they are living in the house, the applicants do not have to pay toward the “silent” loan. This works well in an area where property values are clearly going to rise—ensuring the City does not wind up with red on the books. But, it has also been criticized, since it may inadvertently subsidize spikes in property values.
At any rate, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Gentrification can be avoided if the City and neighborhoods work together to encourage development in their area and manage the unitended consequences.....
Kate
Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:33pm
In Texas we are fortune to have a very broad, little known tooll. Under the tax code we are able togive tax relief for properties in local historic districts. As these are the places where gentrification can occur, this has been a powerful tool. Also, these neighborhoods, usually in the core, provide affordable housing close to transit lines. So, what we have done is set up a program, using this part of the state tax code that rewards repairing and rehabilitating houses in the historic districts. We can literally take the property taxes down to zero. Unfortunately, this is only the city portion of the property tax, not county or school. BUT, it does help. We are able to stabilize neighborhoods and keep people in their homes. Please also note, as has been mentioned, that it is important to have a “tool box” that can include property tax relief, fix-up programs (usually funded by CBDG) and the like--even free design/rehabilitation help-to make this successful.