Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a lot of discussion about gentrification on this site. As I currently find myself at the center of this issue (I moved to Bushwick this fall) I have done some research and found a recent study that at least partly debunks the notion that gentrification hurts low income residents in general in gentrifying neighborhoods. Here is a good article from USAToday that summarizes research by Lance Freeman, an assistant professor of urban planning at Columbia University: USATODAY.com - Studies: Gentrification a boost for everyone
I would enjoy a civil and thoughtful conversation about this subject, and would like to hear perspectives from individuals who have experienced gentrification on all sides of the issue. I'd also be interested in other research studies.
Fort Greene and Clinton Hill have become significantly whiter as black people have left the neighborhoods by the thousands in the last 10 years, census data shows...
In Fort Greene, the black population dropped by 12 percent, while the white population jumped by 12 percent.
In Clinton Hill, the black population dropped by 13 percent, while the white population increased by 14 percent.
The black population shrunk by double digits in Brooklyn’s Prospect Heights, Clinton Hill and Fort Greene, in central Harlem and in South Ozone Park, but jumped in Canarsie and Flatlands, Brooklyn, and in Springfield Gardens, Queens.
And let's not forget that some of the prime gentrifiers of black neighborohoods are "buppies", middle and upper middle class blacks, whose displacement of poorer African-Americans is not reflected in such statistics.
I fully support the ongoing gentrification of New York City. Everything within easy commute of midtown and downtown Manhattan should belong to the middle class and the affluent.
I really would have to see the proper links to support this statement...
"Freeman and Vigdor say gentrification has gotten a bad rap. When they studied New York City and Boston, respectively, they found that poor and less educated residents of gentrifying neighborhoods actually moved less often than people in other neighborhoods — 20% less in New York. "
the fact that these numbers are not even under quotation tells me that this looks more along the lines of the tons of articles on subjective data rather than objective analysis... once again this is my whole issue with gentrification... those that are against it are occused of being subjective and hating the newcomers meanwhile those in favor cannot provide reliable sources...
@ tkak this is not a slight at you, this is for the most part what I find... and I have done alot of research on this topic...
@ woozle, thank you for the links... funny thing is that article aside from a few sentences only further proved to support the point that gentrification displaces the poor... personal experiences, other articles cited... and the only times where the article went in favor of gentrification did not have proper sources...
There is a lot of discussion about gentrification on this site. As I currently find myself at the center of this issue (I moved to Bushwick this fall) I have done some research and found a recent study that at least partly debunks the notion that gentrification hurts low income residents in general in gentrifying neighborhoods. Here is a good article from USAToday that summarizes research by Lance Freeman, an assistant professor of urban planning at Columbia University: USATODAY.com - Studies: Gentrification a boost for everyone
I would enjoy a civil and thoughtful conversation about this subject, and would like to hear perspectives from individuals who have experienced gentrification on all sides of the issue. I'd also be interested in other research studies.
Thanks.
Unfortunately, I think this article is a bit dated. 6 years may not seem that long ago, but in terms of the affects of gentrification, it is. Not to seem biased towards Columbia's staff, but I could only assume that their research would appear more subjective to supporting gentrification because, after all, they are looking to acquire more land around Harlem to expand facilities, ect.
What the article fails to do is describe what a "few" displaced residents is.
Gentrification would, most likely, raise the standard of living in a neighborhood, and then the new amenities could be used by the residing poor and working class as well. However, city policies under the Empire State Development Company (a government funded company that is aimed at developing projects across NYC) do not consider affordable housing enough, nor do they consider the impacts these projects have on existing communities. Integrating affordable housing with market-rate housing is a fundamental aspect in creating a healthy and diverse community. The fear of residents with lower income becomes less severe among the wealthier residents if they, perhaps, live right around the corner from them. This is a good, recent article from the times about this in North Williamsburg. Brooklyn Neighbors Share Landlord but Not Amenities - NYTimes.com
However, even here the housing segregation appears evident with all the private amenities that come with the more expensive housing.
Another negative aspect of gentrification is that it is managed by numbers and charts, and hardly by what the current demographics in the community is in need of. Instead, gentrification hopes to increase upscale retail centers, jobs (not necessarily limited to permanent or specialized jobs), and bring in tax capital for the entire city. These possibilities not only rest on the success of these sometimes risky projects (the Atlantic Yards project), but are also predicting a high net profit from all the end results of a project without any sort of safety net or back up plan to cushion the delays of a project (the Atlantic Yards project)
The reason I am picking on the Atlantic Yards project has to do with the fact that the full project (arena, affordable housing, retail) may never even be completed. Fortunately, recently, Ratner announced that he will build the much needed affordable housing in the community, and may even have to scrap the arena for the future or maybe never complete it. This project has become a manifestation of gentrification, and the greedy and careless capacity that private developers, along with high-ranking city officials, can carry. Furthermore, the lack of the community's consent into the second biggest development project in NYC is appalling. To quote Ratner, "Why should people get to see plans? This isn’t a public project. We’ll follow the guidelines". Not to mention the devastating environmental and quality of life side-effects from pollution, traffic congestion, noise, and population density that would be brought upon the area from the current plans for rezoning. The Atlantic Yards project is ultra gentrification or instant gentrification.
Bushwick is interesting case since it is becoming a haven for artists and bohemians being continually displaced from the Lower East Side (almost all gone) and Williamsburg. What if Bushwick is no longer a place for artists to go? What if it gets invaded with luxury condos and no affordable housing like the rest of many gentrifying areas of the city? Do we push onward with the centrifugal gentrification from Manhattan that has infected Brooklyn? When has an area fully gentrified? Why is Bushwick labeled as "the next Williamsburg" when it could be marketed as "Bushwick, an affordable, culturally diverse, and community oriented neighborhood"? The real-estate market mandate the preconceptions of many gentrifying neighborhoods, hoping to attract the wealthiest investors.
Some may argue that the identity of many neighborhoods are in threat of becoming fully altered because of architectural alterations in the many buildings being demolished, and replaced with something that does not compliment the traditional architectural style that could be found in the neighborhood previously. What I would regret most from the results of gentrification is its newly paved path for structures that do not share a historical identity with the neighborhood, especially Brooklyn. After all, it is Brooklyn's identity that brought investors and residents here in the first place. A horrible NBA team will never replace the Brooklyn Dodgers that are, despite my young age, still revered and create a nostalgic feel for Brooklyn. Brooklyn was the first middle class community in America. I hope it stays that way.
In conclusion, I want Brooklyn to "develop" with keeping the community and identity of each neighborhood in the borough in mind. NYC is rich in its architectural history and it would be a shame to see so many of these historical sites demolished. The framework for developing NYC is managed under city policies aimed at pleasing the market. Market-oriented developments are seen by corporations and government organizations as the primary way of redeveloping cities. However, a community contains more value than the price of any luxury condo or skybox seats at an NBA arena. Well, that's my two-cents.
You cannot have a reasonable discussion about gentrification because it MUST boil down to the argumentative and useless discussion of: "Who is better, the rich or the poor?"
Your economic status perforce frames your argument.
Might as well argue which religion is best or which race.
Here's the thing about neighborhoods changing: it's been happening in New York since the day the city was founded. Whether or not anyone likes it, and no matter who moves in or out, there will be change every generation or so. As they say, deal with it.
And let's not forget that some of the prime gentrifiers of black neighborohoods are "buppies", middle and upper middle class blacks, whose displacement of poorer African-Americans is not reflected in such statistics.
I fully support the ongoing gentrification of New York City. Everything within easy commute of midtown and downtown Manhattan should belong to the middle class and the affluent.
Though I believe there are many positive aspects of gentrification, I do not believe that such wholesale displacement should take place. It doesn't make sense that only the middle class and affluent should have access to decent transportation, school districts and other resources. I don't believe in economic segregation because the concentration of poverty creates hell holes out of places that were once safe. That was the problem with the way housing projects were situated. There are a few neighborhoods which have gentrified but still maintain alot of their original character and flavor, I think that should be a model, more of a neighborhood "revitilization" as opposed to purging the neighborhoods of certain demographics. Some displacement may take place but I believe we should try to maintain economically and ethnically diverse neighborhoods while improving them so that all may reap benifits and also break generational poverty.
By further segregating the poor its going to drain the city's resources further and for a longer term and it perpetuates the welfare culture we have here. If you allow them to have access to basic resources it helps to break that chain and in the long run you won't see a swelling of people flocking to medicaid, welfare or other social programs which many see as a burden on tax dollars (though I see other things as a burden as well). There are balanced approaches to the issue, but its depends on who is apart of the decision making process.
@ Jaged, I wish I could rep you some more, but you laid it out well.
Though I believe there are many positive aspects of gentrification, I do not believe that such wholesale displacement should take place. It doesn't make sense that only the middle class and affluent should have access to decent transportation, school districts and other resources. I don't believe in economic segregation because the concentration of poverty creates hell holes out of places that were once safe. That was the problem with the way housing projects were situated. There are a few neighborhoods which have gentrified but still maintain alot of their original character and flavor, I think that should be a model, more of a neighborhood "revitilization" as opposed to purging the neighborhoods of certain demographics. Some displacement may take place but I believe we should try to maintain economically and ethnically diverse neighborhoods while improving them so that all may reap benifits and also break generational poverty.
By further segregating the poor its going to drain the city's resources further and for a longer term and it perpetuates the welfare culture we have here. If you allow them to have access to basic resources it helps to break that chain and in the long run you won't see a swelling of people flocking to medicaid, welfare or other social programs which many see as a burden on tax dollars (though I see other things as a burden as well). There are balanced approaches to the issue, but its depends on who is apart of the decision making process.
@ Jaged, I wish I could rep you some more, but you laid it out well.
Access to transportation and proximity to the city are two of the many features that make a neighborhood desirable. Why shouldn't these appealing neighborhoods be open to everyone? Just because lower class people currently live there, why is it wrong for the middle class to want it as well and buy them out?
It's not just the rich people kicking the poor out. The poor people are selling their homes to rich people trying to cash in and get their piece of the pie. They're perpetuating gentrification as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
