The Gentrification Shuffle

Gentrification: The displacement of poor women and people of color. The raising of rents and eradification of a single, poor and working-class women from neighborhoods once considered unsavory by people who didn’t live there. The demolition of housing projects. A money-driven process in which landowners and developers push people (in this case, many of them single mothers) out of their homes without thinking about where they will go. Gentrification is a premeditated process in which an imaginary bleach is poured onto a community and the only remaining color left in that community is white… Only the strongest coloreds survived.—Taigi Smith, “What Happens When Your Hood is the Last Stop on the White Flight Express?” from the anthology Colonize This! Young Women of Color on Today’s Feminism.

by Racialicious special correspondent Latoya Peterson

Last year, the Washington Post published a series of articles about the H street corridor in downtown DC. The article detailed the thoughts and opinions of the historical residents, who had seen H street through riots and a depressed economy, and spoke with the new residents who had moved to H street after the city slated the area for economic revival.

What interested me more than the article was the surrounding chat about gentrification, proctored through one of the Washington Post’s “live online” sessions. The discussion quickly dissolved into an argument about the events at a local bar, where some new residents picked up some of the sidewalk chalk sitting in a decorative basket and began drawing on the tables.

The black proprietor objected to them using the chalk. The white party at the table asked why they couldn’t draw with the chalk, since you generally use chalk to draw. The proprietor responded, saying you shouldn’t draw on a place where people eat – no one wants a bite of chalk dust.

This is where the story gets a bit blurry. The white kids assert that the proprietor became shrill, telling them that they didn’t belong in her neighborhood. The proprietor states that the white kids became hostile, saying she should be lucky that they were spending money in her “ghetto” neighborhood.

The article and chat discussion epitomize the delicate dance we do around gentrification. Class divisions and race divisions tend to pop up, turning neighbor against neighbor. Revitalization of an area isn’t always bad – many people enjoy living in luxury condos, having shops within walking distance, and having a nicer, cleaner, and safer neighborhood. Gentrification, however, is revitalization in a different stripe. While revitalization seeks to improve a blighted or run-down area, gentrification aims to attract people with higher incomes to live in the community.

And unfortunately, the people with higher incomes tend to be white. While affluent professionals of all races participate in the gentrification of historically ethnic enclaves, the introduction of whites to a predominantly POC area seems to herald the coming of a gentrification effort.

The business premise behind this is very logical. If a business invests funds to enter into a community (with an unknown rate of return on their investment), they want to be reassured that there will be a nice profit in the not-so-distant future. However, the current residents of the communities hold limited buying power and many cannot afford to patronize the new businesses and shops. That is when business owners and property owners team up to try to attract big spenders with a lot of disposable income, normally by selling the type of lifestyle one sees on TV - city living with lots of clubs, bars, local coffee shops and brunch spots.

A few weeks ago, I happened across an article from USA Today which described the trends in development and gentrification in DC. The article made a startling assertion: my fair chocolate city (with the marshmallow center, as Stephen Colbert notes) will be majority white by 2015.

The article opens:

Much has changed since Ben’s Chili Bowl opened nearly 50 years ago on a bustling strip known as America’s Black Broadway for its thriving black-owned shops and theaters.
Back then, the red-and-white diner was a popular hangout for black bankers, doctors and blue-collar workers who lived and worked along U Street. Even jazz greats Duke Ellington and Ella Fitzgerald could be found devouring chili half-smokes and milkshakes after performing at nearby clubs.

Now, on some days, the crowd at the Washington landmark is mostly white, reflecting a neighborhood metamorphosis that has brought in high-end condominiums and businesses like Starbucks.

“Sometimes you look around and wonder, ‘Where are all the black people?”‘ said Virginia Ali, who opened the diner with her husband, Ben, in 1958.

A similar transformation is happening across Washington as the black population declines and more white residents and other ethnic groups move in. Demographers say if the trend continues the District of Columbia could lose its longtime majority-black status within 10 years. The changes are shaking up city politics, reshaping neighborhoods and displacing longtime residents.

[…]

Analysts attribute the shift to lower-income and middle-class black residents leaving for the suburbs while young white professionals and others able to afford expensive housing prices are moving in. The newcomers to D.C. are being lured by a robust economy, new condos and a chance to escape worsening highway congestion.

Saddened, I finished the article and reflected for a few moments. It isn’t as if gentrification is a new phenomenon. Urban centers like New York (and most notably, Harlem), Philadelphia, and the Bay Area have all experienced tensions surrounding gentrification. However, the reality of the situation becomes a bit harder to swallow as gentrification creeps into your own backyard.

I currently live in the suburb where I grew up - Montgomery County, MD. It is one of the most affluent counties in the nation. It also has a very interesting racial breakdown according to the 2000 census (thanks Wiki!):

The racial makeup of the county was:

64.78% White
15.14% African American
0.29% Native American
11.3% Asian
0.05% Pacific Islander
5.0% from other races
3.45% from two or more races.
In addition, 11.52% of the population was Hispanic or Latino, of any race

I currently live a newly revitalized area. Seemingly overnight, condos sprouted, new stores and shops dotted the formerly barren landscape and it became damn near impossible to get a meal for under five dollars. The average cost of rent in my area soared - most of the studio apartments in my area (under 600 square feet) are easily over $1,000 with many coming in at $1200 and $1300 a month. Luckily for me, MoCo was fairly progressive back in the day and they passed this ordinance:

Since the 1970s, the county has had in place a Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) zoning plan that requires developers to include affordable housing in any new residential developments that they construct in the county. The goal is to create socioeconomically mixed neighborhoods and schools so the rich and poor are not isolated in separate parts of the county. Developers who provide for more than the minimum amount of MPDUs are rewarded with permission to increase the density of their developments, which allows them to build more housing and generate more revenue. Montgomery County was one of the first counties in the U.S. to adopt such a plan, but many other areas have since followed suit.

As a result of this, the building’s residents are all over the map. There are programs for broke young professionals, single parents, low-income workers, veterans, the disabled, etc. The apartment building I live in is ridiculous - yuppies and buppies share elevator space with mentally disturbed Vietnam vets and rambunctious latchkey kids. Checking my mail, I might run into the Navy personnel who rent much of the upper floors as well as local filmmakers. My building is reflective of the diversity of the area - due in no small part to government intervention. Without the plethora of government programs designed to keep us integrated, I wonder how many of us would be living in completely segregated neighborhoods.

The property across the street from my complex is a different story. The townhouses and condos that have arrived on the scene in the last few years sell for astronomical sums. One town home, boasting four bedrooms and one bathroom (WTF at that!) was renting for $2599 per month - no utilities included. When I asked the proprietor why the price was so high, he responded that the mortgage was actually close to $3,000 - the rental price was cheaper! The condos and town homes are also fairly diverse - except for one key difference. There are very few children or older people to be seen. Actually owning a home seems to be the exclusive domain of singletons or young couples with no children - again, catered to those who have significant amounts of disposable income.

With an eye toward purchasing property in the next few years, I checked out a condo community that is less than a mile from my current residence. I chose something similar to my current situation and tried to figure out how much it would cost me to purchase a property. The real estate results came back as follows:

Mortgage Calculator * | Recalculate…

Home Price $307,500
Down Payment $ 61,500
Fixed Rate Term 30 year
Interest Rate 6.28
Estimated Payment 1519.47

*Note: These are estimates only.
Source: Bankrate.com

So - a one bed, one bathroom condo is $307,500. That’s pretty reasonable for this area, but where the hell am I going to get a $60,000 down payment? My credit score made me scream when I saw it, so I can take it that interest rate is shot to hell. Based on my own estimates, even if I can come up with the down payment, a higher interest rate puts me closer to $2,000 a month in payments - not to mention condo fees and MoCo’s killer property taxes.

The situation in DC is even more grim. For example, the tony Ellington Apartments on U Street have a one bedroom, one bathroom unit renting for $1715-$2320 per month. [Also, please check the website. U Street is a historically black area…how much diversity do you see in this ad? And why do the shots of U street only include the tops of the buildings?] The 2020 lofts on U street started at $400,000 for a one-bedroom basic unit. All of the 2020 units have been sold.

While I am not moved to rock-attack people who can afford to live in the beautiful new condos off U Street nor jump some semi-urban cyclist on their way somewhere, I can understand some of the poorly channeled frustration.

The neighborhood is changing, presumably for the better.

And, due to financial constraints, I am not invited to be a part of it.

Now, for me, it will be a temporary situation. With ever increasing earning power, it stands to reason that eventually I will be able to afford one of these overpriced homes. I also do not have any children, meaning the bulk of my income can be used to pay things like exorbitant rent. Hopefully, I will be able to afford to live in the areas where I want to live by the time I am 30.

The gentrification debate continues to war on but I wonder what side I will eventually be on. It is easy to relate to the anger that displaced people feel when they are priced out of their own neighborhood. But will I still feel this way when I can afford that type of housing?

Right now -thanks to my continuing broke status - I still struggle a bit to get my subsidized rent in on time. While I was raging at the real estate website over the unfairness of it all, my DC-born boyfriend injected a note of reason.

“You know,” he started, swinging the laptop around to his side of the bed. “You could afford exactly what you want. A loft, nice view, reasonably priced…”

He pulled up another real estate site. The loft-style condos featured were gorgeous, complete with two levels, stainless steel appliances, granite countertops, and a french door style balcony. All for around $210,000. I was in heaven…until I looked at the address.

The lofts were located on a barren stretch of Rhode Island Avenue, in Washington DC.

“I can’t live there!”

“Why not? That’s what you can afford, right? It’s got everything you want.” He waited for my answer.

“That’s not the kind of neighborhood I’m looking for,” I replied.

And it’s true. My current neighborhood has three major grocery stores in walking distance, a few cute bars and restaurants, a wine store, and a few day spas in the immediate area. The neighborhood does an impeccable job of keeping the streets and sidewalks clean, we have outdoor benches and parks, and there is a very large police presence - which is fairly comforting to a woman who lives alone and frequently gets home well after dark.

The new neighborhood is reasonable and affordable - but the nearest grocery store is 20 minutes away by car (and I don’t have a car!), the nearest businesses are carryouts, check cashing spots, and corner stores. Passing through the area, all I see are men loitering at all times of the day and night, and I would not be caught dead heading home from the closest metro station after sundown.

I tried to explain this to him in the kindest terms possible. However, somewhere around the time I was explaining how I viewed the situation as a young woman living alone, the realization dawned on me: as much as I may disagree with gentrification on principle, I complicity agree with it by my neighborhood selection practices.

So now, I’m left wondering - exactly which side of this debate am I on?

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. A Case for Hipsters (of color)? at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 19 Oct 2007 at 12:36 pm

    […] in rapidly gentrifying neighborhood: […]

  2. Link: The Gentrification Shuffle at Trying to follow on 08 Nov 2007 at 2:14 am

    […] Link: The Gentrification Shuffle. […]

  3. Creative Class » Blog Archive » D.C. and Diversity - Creative Class on 31 Dec 2008 at 5:24 pm

    […] affordability.  On this score, Avent adds:This, I think, is where the public discussion about neighborhood change suffers. … I don’t see how blaming development is the correct way to approach the issue. […]

  4. Racialicious at the Movies: He’s Just Not That Into You at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 10 Feb 2009 at 10:43 am

    […] get any billing at all: the benefits of the gentrification of Baltimore. My feelings on gentrification vs. revitalization are clear. And this movie was like an pro-gentry advertisement from the city of Baltimore. […]

  5. More Notes on Gentrification at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 12 May 2009 at 9:48 am

    […] covered gentrification quite a bit on Racialicious, but we haven’t really spent time discussing the necessary power […]

Comments

  1. dnA wrote:

    I don’t believe prosperity has to be color-conscious, and I’m therefore suspicious of how efficiently gentrification seems to benefit specific groups of people. The Brooklyn neighborhood of Bedford-Stuyvesant is currently dealing with how to share that prosperity with the entire community, rather than confining it to a select few. What happened to Harlem is still on everyone’s minds. It’s mind boggling to me that in a city like DC, where black folks should have so much political power, the pattern is the same as everywhere else, and the people who benefit are always white.

    I used to work at the children’s school on V street, a block away from Ben’s Chili Bowl. Coming out of the door, I could smell the weed people were smoking across the street while watching the basketball tournament. I looked a block in the other direction and there’s someone wearing a fanny pack and walking a poodle.

    Gentrification is a trip.

  2. Allen wrote:

    I’m wondering why historically depressed neighborhoods can’t have revival without becoming bastions of wealth. In the past, neighborhoods with working class and lower income individuals were not desolate wastelands. Why is that the case now. Considering the fact that working class and lower incom individuals are very likely to use public transportation, why aren’t there more public transportation locations in these communities?

  3. Upset The Setup wrote:

    I live in a rent controlled apartment a block away from the U street metro. My neighbors in the same building pay twice or 3 times what I pay. I did it by standing up for my rights and taking my landlord to tenant court. When I tried to organize people in my building they didn’t have the time to do so…

    You also have to realize that the gentrification we are witnessing now is the culmination of a 40 year plan to replace the concentrated underclass of the inner city with the upper middle class as a means to neutralize the threat of urban guerrilla insurgency. Riots and such are a threat to national security. Everyone wins when the poor get pushed out of the city…

  4. gatamala wrote:

    Latoya - get out of my head! I have some random thoughts about this:

    I don’t think that one necessarily has to be on either “side” of this debate. As you’ve noted, DC needs $$$$$$$$$ to run. Who’s got it???

    We can be sensitive and respect the neighborhoods for what they are and be wise. Your personal safety should be your primary concern. Someone was shot in the head at my grocery store. The first time I walked out my new front door, a man threatened to smash another man over the head w/ a 40.

    I have had every thought under the sun:

    Why can’t the “new” people speak? Why don’t “they” use the trash cans? I hate cyclists! I love this festival! I wish these people would stop screaming across the street!

    The funny thing about liquor stores, is that us gentrifiers don’t like them…….until they start stocking hefeweizen and pinot noir. I was prepared to tell them to step their game up - there’s a new drunk in town w/ more disposable income-but was pleasantly surprised. ;)

    While I love my spacious apartment and balcony, I loathe the blood on the sidewalk and human feces behind the building. I predicted that someone would try to steal my car within 6 months. I made 4 months and 20-odd days. I love seeing the children going to pre-k every morning, and I worry because of the MoCo folk who have no regard for the crosswalk. There is nothing like hearing and seeing the aftermath of a vicious wreck to foster a sense of civic duty.

    Everyday is an inner struggle to not let the b.s. get me down and drive me towards hate or apathy. Admittedly, my first instinct was to get mad - “this is MY neighborhood NOW!” But I had to put myself in check. I can accept the situation I moved into, but I still believe that we (all of us) don’t have to tolerate destruction. I feel like a part of the neighborhood, even though I will always be an outsider to some.

    Sometimes I look at the situation and laugh! I noticed some beautiful lillies, but fought back the urge to snatch them up. Of course, someone did the next day. It turns out that my neighboor, who is dedicated to beautifying Mt. Pleasant by planting flowers in the boxes, planted them. Sure, both of us know that the flowers belong to “everybody”, but I can’t blame someone for picking a pretty flower.

    Last week, I came home and saw a shopping cart with a busted (stolen?) TV in it. My first thought was not, “who left that?”, but “I know whose cart that is!!” :lol:

    ……I still hightail to the ‘burbs ever so often to run my errands and do “real” grocery shopping.

  5. Fiqah wrote:

    My roommate and I recently moved to Harlem (we’re both Black). Because we’re new renters, we pay market-rate for our pretty 2/1. Technically, we are part of the gentrification tide. However, a real-estate market savvy acquaintance pointed out that the nature of the real estate market in New York is SO entrenched in institutionalized racism that our very presence in the neighborhood drives the area’s desirability down for “perspective (White) renters.” If what my friend says is true, then our presence helps keep the rents affordable. We are calling this process “brownification.”

  6. Angela wrote:

    The question that always pops up in my mind when this topic is raised is: “what happened to the black people of the areas hey-day to now?” Most of the areas affected by gentrification are primarily black neighborhoods who were thriving in the pre-Civil Rights era.

    MMHHHMMM!

    Areas got run-down because blacks were no longer forced to live with one another. Before the 60s, black doctors, dentists, lawyers, entrepreneurs lived right along side janitors, teachers, barbers, etc and the unemployed, so it was basically a little community of all different social stratospheres. Then, wealthy blacks were able to live in wealthy suburbs (that are predominantly white) and left the cities to the working classes. Then whites wanted to move back into the cities and the only cheap places to live were the working-class black neighborhoods.

    The roots of gentrification lie in the racist past of this country. Minorities, in order to “assimilate” reach for that American dream–buying a house–but whites, who were unhampered by racism and segregation, are generations ahead of us when it comes to what to reach for in order to move up a class or two.

  7. simcha wrote:

    I am so glad to see this post. I’ve been frustrated with the eye-popping rents and condo prices in the D.C./Maryland/Virginia returning to the area after being away almost six years. I blanch at the whole idea of trying to scrape together a $60,000 down payment (WTF?) for a one-bedroom condo that, for the price, should really be a two-bed, two-bath residence. At the very least, I should be able to rent a room out to a poorer college student/intern or an entry-level nonprofit worker to offset my flippin’ mortgage payments.

    That said, I’m feeling Latoya big time on not wanting to live in a sketchy area without even a decent grocery store, particularly as a single woman, just to have a place. But in my frustration I also imagine how shitty it is for those women and children who absolutely have NO choice. For the time being, I have one. We’ll see how long that lasts.

    Die-hard free market disciples and libertarians may call it social engineering, but cities in particular must find ways to keep economic groups mixed. The Montgomery County, Maryland, mandate Latoya mentioned is a good one, I believe. Some of these edicts are more effective than others. I know it’s a hard thing to do, but you don’t need a sociology degree to recognize that concentrated pockets of poverty creates environments where most people who value their lives don’t-want-to- be. Anyone who says otherwise out of a misguided sense of political correctness is lying. Better that the pocket is broken itty-bitty pieces.

    However, taking a “developer’s magic wand” (occasionally in the form of gratuitous tax breaks to establishments that don’t always fulfill their promises) and sweeping out those considered “undesirable” to atlantis isn’t the answer, either.

    Cities like D.C., instead of merely licking their lips at the anticipated sales tax and parking ticket windfall from incoming yuppies, buppies, huppies, etc., should keep their word and hold developers’ feet to the fire when they don’t keep their promises to provide mixed-use dwellings. That is, if the cities took the time from the outset to identify with the needs of “those people” — which to be sure covers a growing number of us with modest incomes — in their development plans.

  8. eric daniels wrote:

    Sorry folks it does not work that way, I have written reports in classes and did a paper on a neighborhood projects that was condemned and in two years they rebuilt the same neighborhood into affordable mixed condos and single homes and they invited only 300 families of the orginal 1800 families who lived there. A sociologist friend of mine asked me what did i think because she was doing a study of the gentirication of the area. I told her check out how many boys are in the neighborhood out of those 300 families they invited back and you will get your answer on what they are trying to do.

    Needless to she was shocked after her study of those 300 families 80% of the single mother families were mainly females only small male children 0-5 years and no male teenagers and if there were male teenagers they had to be in two- parent families making 38,000 a year. The neighborhood is safe and development is starting to happen but now they had problems with a group of former residents who call themesleves YBM (YOUNG BLACK MALES) who have created some damage, graffiti. But that’s progress somebody was going to be sacrificed on the altar and the question is how much?

  9. Mike wrote:

    Down here in Atlanta gentrification is doing a number on poor working class neighborhoods. Places like Grady Homes, Capitol apt are long gone and the area is being preped for luxury condos. West side Atlanta were the AUC are located is slowly being set up. Auborn ave is the only street that has made it clear that they have no intention of allowing a demographic shift, but that is because Ebenezzer chuech made it there buisness to purchase most of the property on the street. The whole of Atlanta city is getting the white wash treatment with places like Atlantic Station and other “instant” neighborhooods popping up. People are already predicting a change in the cities racial make up within 20 years. The politicians are raising hell but only because they fear a change in the make up of there district voters thus the chance that they might be out of there jobs. Which means keeping things the same while not offering solutions to the poor about employment, education, and crime. (I guess there to busy worried about passing laws to keep kids from wearing there pants below the waste).
    Mean while the working class is getting pushed further out into metro Atlanta counties like Dekalb, Cobb, and Marietta. But you can see tension already building in those counties as the old residents blame the new for the spike in crime. There is a large wealthy population of blacks down here but they are concentrated out side the city. and tend to stay out of the cities affairs unless there is some type of big event going on like the BET awards, or NBA allstar game ect, ect. The city has been earmarked for the upwardly mobile 24-35 years of age, single, child less, and 40,000 a year salary at the least. There open to all colors but you know who the majority of people are going to be that fit that catagory.
    Gentrification is a mutha.

  10. di wrote:

    For the most part, I think gentrification is often misunderstood. I live in Cambridge, Mass, a city that underwent this in the late 70s and early 80s. Demographics have changed a bit with more black and Latino people moving into the city. There are many students and many youngish families.

    Jamaica Plains is newly gentrified. Young urban professionals (not rich people, but young people living comfortably) have moved in. The lower-income populations are still there and though there’s conflict, businesses have moved to the area and jobs have been created. Public housing options are mandated in both areas and people have better lives as a result.

    It doesn’t have to be a negative process. Your elected officials determine how it goes which means you determine how it goes. I find it more appalling that there are so many places that are being ignored. Granted, the option isn’t stay the same or gentrify. A 13 year old boy was killed coming home yesterday from a part of the city that pretty much everyone who isn’t a resident avoids. A Vietnamese man killed another Vietnamese man over a petty fight. It saddens me but it doesn’t shock me. If it curbs the violent crime in these areas so young people, many of color, stop dying over nonsense, let’s pull out the welcome mat for Starbucks. A better option would be to think creatively

  11. Lyonside wrote:

    Angela Said:Areas got run-down because blacks were no longer forced to live with one another. Before the 60s, black doctors, dentists, lawyers, entrepreneurs lived right along side janitors, teachers, barbers, etc and the unemployed, so it was basically a little community of all different social stratospheres. Then, wealthy blacks were able to live in wealthy suburbs (that are predominantly white) and left the cities to the working classes. Then whites wanted to move back into the cities and the only cheap places to live were the working-class black neighborhoods
    ————
    OK, Wait - Angela, you’re not saying that “working class/non-degree” = “run-down” are you? (My blue-collar roots are tingling)

    While I totally agree that the healthiest neighborhoods are those in which there is a wide range of economic levels . Economic diversity meanst that there are always entry level jobs available, and ways of moving vertically and laterally in a given profession. It means that people can work, shop, and get services close to where they live, and they’re more likely to know their neighbors and have a sense of ownership in the community. But I don’t think that urban and suburban decay is CAUSED by working class people.

    What has happened to the urban neighborhoods is not only upper and middle income people moving OUT to wealthier/newer suburbs (before eventually moving BACK), but ALSO traditional blue-collar jobs moving away or disappearing without adequate, similar replacement. It leaves an economic hole that is too often filled by people living in one area and commuting long distances to the ‘burbs to work in the service industry (often serving people whose parents left those neighborhoods to begin with). Add decaying infrastructure (usually associated with a declining tax base), and opportunistic businesses (the legal liquor stores and bargain basements, and of course the illegal ones, notably the drug trade and all the ills that go with it), and I’m describing a lot of urban neighborhoods.

    In Philly, the “badlands” are peppered with abandoned factories in rowhome neighborhoods. I once had it out with an ex who couldn’t understand why “those people” lived like that. I told him to read the faded signs and names on the buildings - textile factories, pipe cutters, flour mills, lighting and lamp shops… all working-class jobs paying living wages that let families generally live and work in the same vicinity, and that supported local and regional business districts.

    Bottom line: the problem isn’t the working class. It’s a working class with no work that pays a living wage, and busing tables at the new Panera’s doesn’t count.

  12. atlasien wrote:

    I also live in Atlanta on the far east side… gentrification patterns here are on steroids. If you live in one neighborhood for 50 years you’ll probably experience at least 3 class/race demographic cycles.

    Right now there are a ton of upper middle class African-Americans, especially from California, moving to Atlanta, although many of them locate to suburbs near or outside the perimeter. Working class AA Atlantans (”Grady babies”) are facing much different housing issues than these new arrivals. And then a few areas in the to the northeast are actually experiencing white flight… due to massive Mexican and SE Asian presence.

    The wild card in the future of Atlanta demographics is Mexican-American. Until recently Georgia has the fastest growing Latino population in the U.S. I don’t know what the future will look like. I do agree the downtown area will become whiter, but the rest of the city may become more diverse and more integrated…

    Atlantic Station is a fetid abortion of a “community”. Every time I drive past it boggles my mind that someone would actually pay to live there.

  13. DeeDee wrote:

    I saw a great documentary on Race on PBS a few years ago that explicity showed how the government (in the 40s) helped to support white flight and discourage lenders from accepting applications from blacks into the suburbs. So in the metropolitan areas, those blacks were left in the city as whites and business fled to the suburbs to create their paradise.

    Flip the script 50 odd years or so and now you have suburbanites (many of them white) aching to come back into these very unwanted areas. Of course the areas become desirable once you create ridiculously priced condos ($500K+) and drop in a few Starbucks, Food Emporium’s and the like and REMOVE the blacks from the equations.

    I live in NYC and live in upper Manhattan and it’s a trip to see the number of yuppies who are venturing into the darker territories. As an African American it’s offensive to know that businesses and the city only care about the comfort and welfare of the wealthiest and whitest citizens over the rest of the population. You would think that incidents such as Columbine would teach people that exclusivity never saves anyone from drama. But hey, who am I to judge? White is the new right.

  14. DeeDee wrote:

    I found the link for the series I was referring to:
    http://www.pbs.org/race/006_WhereRaceLives/006_00-home.htm

    This was a GREAT documentary that began questioning the biological validity of race and every American needs to see it.

  15. Gregory A. Butler wrote:

    I live in Harlem, which has been ground zero for New York gentrification for the last 20 years now.

    Of course, New York is the American city that pioneered gentrification back in the 1960’s.

    Starting in the mid 1950’s, we had “urban renewal” - which translated as tearing down apartments where working class tenants lived, and replacing them with luxury housing.

    This process accelerated in 1969, with the repeal of our Rent Control Law, which put caps on the rents paid by working class New Yorkers.

    It was replaced by Rent Stabilization, with guaranteed rent increases for landlords every year.

    On paper, the rent increases had to be approved by a mayorally appointed board - but every two years from 1971 to date the Rent Guidelines Board, after a bogus “debate” staged for the TV cameras, automatically grants the landlords a rent increase.

    This accelerated the gentrificaiton process - and took it to a whole other level.

    In White working class neighborhoods in Manhattan and Brooklyn that were within easy communting distance from Midtown and the Financia District, landlords openly hired thugs to drive out tenants.

    In some cases, the now vacant apartments were filled with wealthy and upper middle class tenants - with some of the older buildings, they were torn down and replaced with new luxury buildings.

    To further this process, the City of New York went $ 792 million in debt to pay for the gentrification (the City borrowed money short term, at high interest, and lent it out to the landlords, long term at low interest, to help them pay for the gentrification)

    In Black and Latino working class neighborhoods in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens which were too heavily of color to be gentrified (as well as at least one White working class neighborhood in Queens - Far Rockaway - which was too far from Manhattan for easy commuting) the landlords did something far more dramatic.

    They struck a match.

    That is, they hired “torches” (professional arsonists) to burn down their buildings so they could walk away with the fire insurance.

    A lot of folks think that 9/11 was the first time New York got hit by terrorism - not so, the wave of arsons from 1971 - 76 was an earlier terrorist attack, which impacted far more New Yorkers than September 11th did.

    The Citys $ 792 million dollars of gentrification debt came due in 1975, and, since the City hadn’t yet gotten repaid by the landlords, the City went bankrupt (the “Fiscal Crisis”).

    This stopped the arsons in the working class neighborhoods of color, and the thug-based illegal evictions in the White working class neighborhoods, but the damage had been done.

    Gentrification would never again be as dramatic as it was then - but the trend had been set.

    Subsequently, the pro real estate industry policies of mayors Ed Koch, David Dinkins (yes, our first - and so far only - Black mayor was pro gentrification too), Rudolph Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg have continued the process of gentrification, by less dramatic means.

    You can read about this story in Chapter 2 of my book “DISUNITED BROTHERHOODS: …race, racketeering and the fall of the New York construction unions” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0595391435/ref=pd_rhf_p_1/002-6516548-2058432?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

    Needless to say, my position on gentrification is 100% OPPOSITION - and I feel the only solution is a mass struggle to expand public housing, so as to put a downward pressure on skyrocketing rents.

  16. Colin wrote:

    Lyonside, does that mean reopening factories and mills could lead to a renovation of urban neighborhoods? Or should we try to find other ways to bring blue-collar jobs?

  17. Lyonside wrote:

    Colin: No, i”m not saying that - but urban and older suburban neighborhoods that are showing their age or struggling through social ills did not get that way overnight, and it’s not only (or sometimes not much at all) the fault of the homeowners living there. I just resent when people without college degrees (or those who have them and choose to not practice in that field) are considered as less deserving of safe neighborhoods and secure jobs, or are condescended to by those of better economic means (”oh, but of COURSE there are jobs… can you make a good latte?”)

    No, “reopening” mills and factories is not the solution - the US is predominantly a consumer-based service economy. Although some goods and products are still made in the US and likely always will be, globalization is a reality that makes small mom-and-pop operations often unable to compete. Advances in technology have also made it so that things can be mass-produced and shipped for a cheaper cost that if you were to make it on a small sca.e - you just don’t NEED a sheet metal shop every 10 miles anymore.

    I’m definitely not saying, turn back the wheel of time or anything - but there’s more to it than the idea that “poor people can’t take care of their neighborhoods.”

  18. Lyonside wrote:

    For clarity: all blue collar jobs are not factory jobs. What I’d love to see regarding urban redevlopment is multiple use zones, affordable housing, and a mix of socioeconomic levels, family groups, age ranges, etc.

    That scenario is sometimes built into zoning agreements, but enforcement can be lax. But that type of economic and social diversity is often better in the long run for the environment and the economy - by reducing commuting times, traffic, and pollution, and supporting mass transit;encouraging involvement in your community (and not just the latest know-no-neighbors cul-de-sac), which makes its way into public schools, neighborhood groups, local advocacy, etc; and providing a network of local businesses that serve the variety of people in the neighborhood and ultimately support its viability.

  19. Mike wrote:

    Dang, I frogot about the Mexicans in Atlanta. I am not sure what there sitituation is, earlier this year it was a big deal with them an false IDs and driver license, but things have been quite about them of late. There numbers are big and sooner or later there going to flex there politics. I think it may rub black people the wrong way than whites as they start to compete for limited resources. You can see how they made there mark in metro atl,they pretty much run the north like Buford hgy, Jimmy Cater, and Peachtree Industrial. The only time you hear about them though if one gets a DUI or runs into a road block and is found out to be illegal. I know there is a serious gang problem but they mostly prey on there own because they know that there is a fear in there community of going to police for help.

  20. 'Stone Bear wrote:

    As a white person who just moved to Brooklyn, gentrification has been all over my mind. I settled for a place in Sunset Park/Boro Park, which is a good 50+ minute commute to lower Manhattan. Besides the two people I moved in with, there are very few white people in this neighborhood. I don’t even know where any grocery stores are, but there’s plenty of take-out. My roommate got up really early this morning and saw two bags of heroin in front of our neighbor’s door. My neighbors play loud music and shout/fight a lot. The sidewalks have a significant amount of trash. There are men loitering at all times of day and night. I guess what I’m saying is, it doesn’t appear to be a very “nice” or “desirable” neighborhood, right? But from talking with co-workers and other young urban professionals, they all strongly approve of where I’m living. Nice places with low rents. And I just keep getting the feeling that I’m only part of the first wave. I shudder to think what this place will look like in five or ten years. And I don’t know where that leaves me - another white face, making it that much safer for more white faces.

  21. Karen wrote:

    Sorry to be so slow, but can someone explain the whole process of gentrification?

  22. Colin wrote:

    Lyonside, I’m getting a little more intrigued about this issue on jobs. Blue-collar is basically earning an hourly wage, so there are plenty of non-factory blue-collar jobs, indeed.

    I wonder, though, what sorts of jobs other than underpaid service work can one without a college degree find in a gentrified neighborhood, usually? Also, are those wanting to be in a safe and secure neighborhood going to have to find a way into salaried positions? I’ve feared for a while that blue-collar work is being quickly phased out of the country; is that accurate?

    (Sorry, it’s convoluted, I know)

  23. Lyonside wrote:

    Colin: I would broaden your definition of blue-collar. For me it’s not just an hourly wage, as there are traditional “white collar” jobs that can also pay by the hour.

    And there are traditional “blue collar” jobs (say, a machinist/mechanic for Amtrak) that pay a salary, no matter how many hours you work . Overtime depends on unionization, not type of job.

    The definition of blue collar for me is closer to the examples here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blue-collar

    I include: unskilled labor, usually manual/physical (Or rather, entry level is unskilled, skill comes with experience, no college degree required); service jobs like maintenance, sanitation, CDL drivers; skilled labor like plumbers, electricians, factory workers, construction workers, etc. Ideally these jobs have a sliding payscale, benefits, and pension/401(k), and with experience and a clean record, you earn a decent salary.

    The jobs are often but not always union, and the lines are often blurred today - for example, my spouse is a CDL driver (no college experience, and he’s worked for hazmat, dairy, and frozen food companies) - at the same time, a portion of many of his jobs is a bit “white collar” - he helps store managers and business owners assess their needs, makes orders for them, and collects payments. In general, we’re demanding more from our “blue collar” workers, and we do more with less numbers.

    White collar has traditionally meant a profession with a college degree or other advanced training, service industries without manual labor, etc.

    I have no idea where they’d put entry level jobs like a waiter or cashier, especially if they’re also supposed to stock shelves or mop floors. I jokingly call my own job “light-blue collar,” because, yes I have a college degree and some office space… I also have hip waders and a machete, and find myself doing pretty manual labor 40% of the time.

    There’s a class-issue at work here, and as the US economy has diversified, so have our job descriptions - we multitask EVERYTHING, and the white/blue collar doesn’t define us really so much as “upper/middle” and “working/lower middle” class, or maybe “management” vs. “non-management.”

    I’m not an economist, so I don’t know how to really categorise the economy. But what I’d want is for people to have economic and social options in their own communities, that the “haves” and the “have nots” are not segregated, and that the chasm between the two groups grows a bit narrower, instead of wider, for the good of the greater society.

  24. Michelle wrote:

    I think this has been one of the most informative and illuminating discussions yet. I have learned so much from reading all of the posts.

    I would like to add that NYC has something very, very few cities have, brokers. For those of you who don’t know, there are real estate brokers in the city who pretty much exclusively deal with rental properties. Finding an apartment in NYC (more specifically most of Manhattan) without a broker, simply on your own without a friend or family member passing on an apartment to you, is INCREDIBLY hard. The brokers snatch up all the good listings and leave the slim pickings behind. A brokers fee is 5% of a year’s rent…ad to that first and last month rent, plus a secruity deposit and renting an apartment in NYC is like coming up with a down payment on a house. I wonder if this whole process was a part of Gregory Butler outlined in his post?

  25. felinelover wrote:

    A very interesting topic, indeed.

    Gentrification, in my opinion, will eventually become a two-fold issue of race and economic status.

    The issue of jobs that pay a decent wage is one that has become a legitimate concern as this country moves closer to eliminating the middle class. As Lyonside mentioned, many “blue collar” jobs were/are unionized (particularly in the Northeast and West). The onslaught of attacks on labor unions, generally by the right is a sure way of eliminating the middleclass, which essentially was created by union jobs.

    Over the summer, the Wall Street Journal printed an article regarding New York becoming an enclave for the “super rich” (with the prices I’ve seen, it is certainly moving in that direction).

  26. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Thank you all for the insightful comments. I thought about what you all wrote while I was out this weekend. My boyfriend wanted to show me the neighborhood that I didn’t want to live in. I saw it and I still don’t want to live there - but for different reasons. I think Allen’s comment corresponds to what I was thinking - what makes an area run down? Can a neighborhood be gentrified for the grater good? Why are some areas (with thriving small businesses) seen as areas in need of gentrification? Why do some areas attract shoe stores, strip malls, and fast food places? Some of the areas we visited over the weekend were complete hell-holes…outfitted with shoe stores, fast food restaurants, and carryouts. I am thinking of doing another post - Revitalization vs. Ghetto Blight.

    Like the situation dnA described above (which I see all the time), ghetto blight is one of those things you have to see to believe.

    Anyway, that’s where my head is - planning part two of this post. I’ll respond to some of the comments in a few…

  27. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Karen -

    This post was originally called “The Gentrification Primer” - however, since most people on this blog are familiar with the premise of gentrification (if not currently experiencing the process), I choose to omit some of the explanations.

    Wiki has a good definition here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification

    Di -

    Gentrification is not misunderstood. I make this statement because I believe there is a difference between revitalization and gentrification. Revitalizing a neighborhood and introducing new elements while preserving history is not a negative thing. It does create jobs. It does allow for better living and happier inhabitants.

    Gentrification, however, tends to connote a process that is specifically geared to attract a certain demographic to a neighborhood. There is no attention paid to the areas history or needs. The area is essentially gutted, people are displaced, and newer, more affluent residents are courted.

    There is rampant gentrification going on in New Orleans. Low income areas and housing projects have been closed indefinitately, while luxury condos open their doors to the new white collar professionals that they hope to attract. In the meantime, former residents are homeless, in transit, and settling elsewhere. Their homes, their lives, their stories do not matter.

    They are poor.

    They are low-class.

    They are uneducated.

    So, in the eyes of developers, they are worthless.

    The idea of promoting the wants of a few over the demonstrated needs of many is why gentrification is perceived in the way it is.

  28. Ike wrote:

    Just wondering - what are some possible solutions?

  29. grad student wrote:

    tough situation to be “for” or “against.”

    I’m a white grad student in DC. Working-class. Spent a couple years on welfare growing up, went to school here for undergrad on 90% scholarship. Now in grad school.

    Can’t afford to live on U Street any more than anyone can. Currently paying under $700 for a single room in a row house in Mt. Vernon Square.

    On the street, in a button-down shirt with an Ipod, I look like gentrification. But I’m on an awful tight budget and certainly am not responsible for driving the rents up around here.

    This is a complex issue with no short answers…

  30. Allen wrote:

    Latoya hit the nail on the head with her last post. Gentrification means getting rid of one group to attract another. Revitalization means improving the neighborhood for the people already there, and the people who want to move there. And race is still a huge issue. The Chicago Sun Times did a series a few years ago that said that home values in predominantly black neighborhoods are significantly lower than home values in similar white neighborhoods even when those white neighborhoods have higher crime rates. So basically, the color of your neighbors is one of the main concerns in how much your house is worth. Things haven’t changed as much as people think they have.

  31. MSS wrote:

    this is all very interesting, but the question i always come away with is: where are white people without much money supposed to live (i am white and live in Bed-Stuy). i have long sensed the anger of the people of color in the neighborhood, but i honestly could not afford a neighborhood in NYC that was not primarily occupied by people of color. i had less than $500 a month to spend on rent, i moved to Bushwick, i had fruit thrown at me by local kids, now i live in a very cheap apartment that my boyfriend took over from his ex-roommates, who were middle-class African-Americans. I feel bad about all that is happening but i really can’t see any other options. i can’t even afford to leave NYC and commute in from LI or NJ because i can’t afford a car. i don’t want to be were people don’t want be but i don’t see any other choice.

  32. Derek wrote:

    Re: “and the people who benefit are always white”…

    I know an interracial couple, both professionals, that intentionally bought a house in an area as gentrification was beginning, knowing that their property value would increase.

    And so a Caribbean-American woman and her bi-racial children benefitted from gentrification.

    Whenever a person says “always”… they are almost always wrong. The same goes for “never”. It’s usually best to refrain from making generalizations which paint one group as victims without exception, or paint another group as victimizers without exception.

  33. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Grad Student & MSS -

    Thanks for sharing your perspectives.

    For me, the issue isn’t a for or against, but more of an issue to be mindful of. Neigborhoods want people like us to live there, to pay these high ass rents, to want to move to their neighborhood. I think it is up to us to show them that what we want is a little different.

    What drives me crazy is that there seems to be no middle ground being developed. Everything is luxury - luxury condo, luxury apartments, etc. What happened to the middle ground? Why does it have to be an all or nothing proposition? Where are the mixed income communities. (I know of one in DC, and there are probably more, but they pale in comparision to all the signs I see for new, luxury developement.

    Where are white people supposed to live? Where everyone else does - you find a neighborhood that suits you. Yes, it’s unfortunate that kids threw fruit at you - just like kids throw rocks at some of the people on U street.

    But I also remember classmates in high school throwing water balloons and paint at people out of our school bus windows. I just assume kids are assholes. :-)

  34. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Ike -

    To find a solution, people would need to agree this is a problem, which many do not. If you benefit from gentrification, why would it bother you?

    Also, one has to figure out who is responsible for the problem. In my opinion, it is not the developers who are responsible - they are in the business to make a profit. To me, it is the urban developers and people in the communties. It’s people like us - who will eventually have the means to live where we want. Where will we choose to live? What will we ask of our communties?

    I don’t think it is too much to ask for us to be mindful of a community and its culture when we move there.

    (Not thinking so much about urban blight here, but more the gentrifiers who move to artist enclaves and then get pissy about the noisy street festivals and late night bars. All these things were there when you moved in…)

    Michelle/Lyonside/Colin/Angela -

    The blue collar vs. white collar issue is too long for me to get into here. Congratulations, you just made this a three part discussion.

  35. Kai wrote:

    Great stuff, Latoya.

    In my view, there’s a concrete economic difference between gentrification, revitalization, and all variations thereof, which can be reduced to a fundamental question: Is the balance of the profit generated by new capital investment ending up in the hands of local residents, or is it being funneled off into corporate coffers and outsider bank accounts? The former indicates economic revitalization, the latter is a form of corporatist neo-colonialism even if it involves job-creation and spiffy new awnings. To me, this is the heart of the matter.

    White folks are generally welcomed into communites of color if they’re genuinely committed to that community: parking their money within the community, joining pre-existing civic groups, following the lead of longtime residents, getting on board the community’s homegrown economic and civic uplift initiatives, and truly becoming a part of that community. But if they’re there to exploit, displace, destabilize, impose upon, take advantage of, and capitalize upon that community, it’s a problem.

    Peace.

  36. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Oops, typo.

    In my response to Ike, “urban developer” should read “urban planner” - as in the people who our elected officials designate to plan communities and spaces.

    Also, just came across this on Stereohyped:

    Gentrification means different things to different people, said Pamela Pinnock, 49, a black events manager at Busboys and Poets, a U Street corridor bar and restaurant.

    “When black and brown people hear the word `gentrification,’ they think it means white developers are coming and moving the black and Latino people out of the area,” she said. “White people think it means the neighborhood is finally getting a Starbucks or Whole Foods.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aXUCsUC90itw&refer=us

    I’m working on part two of this conversation, hopefully, I will have it up this week…

  37. queer hapa wrote:

    “Also, one has to figure out who is responsible for the problem. In my opinion, it is not the developers who are responsible - they are in the business to make a profit.”

    maybe i’m being dense, but i don’t understand this logic at all. developers are prime players in gentrification BECAUSE they are trying to make a profit and couldn’t care less about the damage they wreak on neighborhoods. they’re not the only ones at fault, of course, especially since city officials often collude with them to give them enormous tax breaks and incentives, but they are absolutely not blameless.

  38. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Queer -

    No, you aren’t being dense, it is a good question.

    I feel like holding developers responsible for gentrification is like holding McDonald’s responsible for the health of children. They contribute to the problem, and they push the product, but there are checks in place to stop them. Could McDonald’s do more for the health of children? Yes. And they do some things. But their main goal is profit.

    It is the same with developers. Bozutto and other companies may want to foster community - but profit wins. Profit will always win.

    That is why I feel like the onus here falls on communities and governments to ensure that the things they say they want in a community (diversity, affordable housing) actually happens.

    I recently took the time to fill out a 30 min long intensive survey on the MoCo housing market. A developer was asking for input as to what people wanted to see in a new development. They asked about townhomes vs. apartments; locations; anemities; cost; location, etc. There was also a long discussion of pricing. Would I pay more for a place near the metro? Would I pay more for french doors? Would I pay less if the apartments were located farther from the city center.

    (Semi-ironically, I received a gift card to Starbucks for my assistance.)

    To me, this shows that developers are really starting to think about the market. Where I live is oversaturated with condos. The new luxury apartments are sitting on the market, looking unlived in after a year. So things are shifting.

    While politicians do give all these tax & development breaks to developers, developers want to make money. If gentrification brings in money, that’s what they will do. If the demand suddenly increases for affordable, mid-priced housing options, that is what developers will do.

  39. queer hapa wrote:

    still not getting it. and the mcdonald’s example isn’t helping. ;) mcdonald’s is a profit-seeking multinational corporation whose bottom line is making money, not supplying nutritious food to kids. got that, makes sense. but it’s their profit-seeking that emboldens them to specifically market to children through advertising, use of cartoon characters, free toys with happy meals, etc. diabetes and obesity may be unintended consequences of the profit motive, but just as i believe developers are partially responsible for gentrification, i also believe that mcdonalds is partially responsible for our country’s health epidemic (obviously not entirely, and again, in collusion with other forces such as the FDA, subsidies to Big Agra, and so on).

    “That is why I feel like the onus here falls on communities and governments to ensure that the things they say they want in a community (diversity, affordable housing) actually happens.”

    the onus falls on communities? but aren’t they, particularly poor, immigrant, and POC communities the ones getting tossed out of their neighborhoods? maybe things work differently in DC than they do in NYC, but despite widespread, ORGANIZED opposition, i’ve seen community after community being decimated by developers, sometimes thru eminent domain. google atlantic yards, stuyvesant town, and starrett city for a few examples.

    developers are interested in hearing from potential buyers of their properties, of course! but do they bother asking the CURRENT residents and small business owners for “input”? frank gehry, the renowned architect who will be designing the atlantic yards complex in brooklyn, has been quoted as saying something like how he was excited about having the opportunity to build a neighborhood “from scratch,” totally ignoring the fact that there already WAS a neighborhood, with real live people living there!

    i guess my point of view is that i don’t see market forces as being external to the process of gentrification (or health epidemics, for that matter), but very much intrinsic to them.

  40. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    QH -

    “the onus falls on communities? but aren’t they, particularly poor, immigrant, and POC communities the ones getting tossed out of their neighborhoods? maybe things work differently in DC than they do in NYC, but despite widespread, ORGANIZED opposition, i’ve seen community after community being decimated by developers, sometimes thru eminent domain. google atlantic yards, stuyvesant town, and starrett city for a few examples.”

    I was getting to that, but since you brought it up…

    The more I research this (and hear from people in other areas), gentification seems to operate differently in different pockets of the country. While eminent domain has been used here, it is not a popular option. Plus, in DC, a lot of sites & neighborhoods are considered “historic” - so there are a lot more guidelines on how communties can be built.

    We also do not have apartment brokers in DC (thanks for the info on that Michelle!), and co-op boards exist, but they do not seem to be as widespread here as they are in NYC.

    Atlasien/Lyonside/Gregory/Mike - can you all weigh in with your respective areas of the country? What contributes to gentrification there?

    QH - I get what you are saying, and I feel sorry that I do not have enough knowledge of NYC to give you anything approaching an answer. It seems like gentrification there has a system which allows it to thrive - whereas in other areas, we are just starting to see the effects.

    So what do you think developers should do in NYC?

  41. yeah wrote:

    Just move to petworth if columbia heights hasn’t eaten it up yet. I mean, yeah it’s not the best area but, you have to spot the trends and invest before the affluent get there.

  42. yeah wrote:

    also, how does your skin color give you the right to afford to live in a historically rich section of Wasington DC? I’m “white,” and used to live in Moco, specifically G-burg. I couldn’t hardly afford to live in the ghetto of NE DC when I was living on Georgia Ave right outside a drug strip. Just because my “racial” ancestors have a rich history in the NW doesn’t mean I should somehow have the right to be able to afford to live there.

  43. yeah wrote:

    It sucks to be poor. It bothers me that this has conflated into an issue of race. It’s funny how I can literally feel the racial tension in every inner-city I’ve lived in because of the stratification of wealth. I seriously feel like if I don’t posture like a thug or some bullshit, people will try to rob me. It seems like all the poor areas in philly are pretty divided and segregated as well. DC was less, but much the same way in certain parts, especially what I’ve seen of Anacostia, etc. Ignorance breeds racism and poverty breeds ignorance. It’s strange how in the suburbs though I feel like most of the time no one gives race much of a second thought. Maybe it’s because the poorer areas still get the same public schooling that the richer areas are helping to pay for.

  44. yeah wrote:

    ps. it’s not funny in a good way. And it bothers me when people continue to promote designation and animosity between races through racially charging economic issues. We live in a meritocracy that doesn’t have a balanced economic floor. The issue of voluntary exchange needing to be facilitated through a better organized department of education should have nothing to do with race.

  45. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Yeah -

    This is both a class issue and a race issue.

    I’ll keep this brief, since I am writing a longer piece on race and class.

    However, if America was a pure meritocracy, then we would not have the problems seen in gentrification. The simple fact of the matter is that race still does matter.

    When things like your name can cost you a job, when a co-op board rejects your application because they are worried your “ethnic cooking” will smell up the hallways, and when your race determines the desireability of your neighborhood (see Fiqah’s comment, nuber 5 in this thread) it is simply shocking to me when people persist in saying it is an economic issue.

    There are some things that money cannot equalize.

  46. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    *nuber = number

  47. Michelle wrote:

    I just came back from DC and a few things occured to me.

    I remember a period of time when all the “white people” wanted to leave the cities. Going to the suburbs was the thing to do. So, anyone else with money wanted to move to the suburbs as well. At the time suburbs=better schools, better quality of life. As a matter of fact, “A Raisin in the Sun” is all about a family who is trying to move on up to the all-white suburbs. In the film version, when they arrive, they are not greeted with a warm welcome by their now, all white neighbors.

    Now it seems that the trendy thing is to move back to the cities, with DC, Chicago and Atlanta being the poster cities for “gentrification”.

    I think that NYC functions on a slightly different level. Let’s take Hell’s Kitchen for example. The name pretty much says it all. It was not where anybody wanted to be, period. About ten years ago, some developers moved in, the drugs and crime started move out and bingo, a two bed one bath goes for 2800/month…way more than that now. Interestingly enough, Hell’s Kitchen was an ethnically diverse neighborhood, just very homogenous crime wise. Many people see Hell’s Kitchen as not so much gentrification, but simply cleaning up NYC. And take Fort Greene. Fort Greene was a decent neighborhood in BK…now my facts on Ft Greene prior to 1999 are sketchy, but around that time, Black grad students/college students and working professionals started moving in in droves. Black business was thriving. The prices in Ft. Greene went up and up, and now Ft. Greene, while diverse, is still a largely Black community, but price wise, it is now unmanagable for a grad student/young professional.

    I bring those examples up to illustrate that I think that the premiums on space in NYC make it almost exclusively about money and power. Race, in this context, does not hold the same relevance as it does in other metro areas. Also, NYC seems to function in a very illicit way and quite openly. QH is right in the sense that no one seems to care about hearing the voices of people with no money. In NYC, at least, there are these neighborhoods that exist and thrive that just look like free land to people with money. And because the residents are not economically powerful enough to resist, their neighborhoods are erased from the map of NYC, in well, a New York minute.

    Ironically, it seems to me that the developers and planners in other cities can’t function with the same blatant disregard.

    Also, Los Angeles is an interesting city to look at dealing with housing, race, money, class and power. But perhaps it is more appropriate to discuss in Part Two, LaToya?

  48. Colin wrote:

    Michelle: When speaking of cost of housing, what of communities of color that become relatively self-reliant economically? (I don’t believe any one community can be 100% “self-reliant” nowadays is all)

    LaToya and queer hapa: “I feel like holding developers responsible for gentrification is like holding McDonald’s responsible for the health of children. They contribute to the problem, and they push the product, but there are checks in place to stop them. Could McDonald’s do more for the health of children? Yes. And they do some things. But their main goal is profit.”

    McDonald’s? Marketing to kids? Unhealthy, cheap foods? That could be a whole other part, LaToya!

    The point about developers providing affordable housing if demand is there ain’t true up here in Evanston, IL, where I’m at.

    We have big problems with 1) TIFs killing the education budgets and resulting in gentrification in areas known as previously thriving communities of color, 2) condo conversion and construction at ridiculous levels, taking previously affordable housing plots and locations and making them exorbitantly expensive, and 3) unfailing, unflinching, unceasing malfeasance politically at a local level, despite continual press and outrage at local City Council meetings over the ever-escalating costs of residence. These combine with the omnipresent racial ignorance rampant in uber-liberal Evanston to drive people of color out of the city or keep them away altogether. (My family being one such example years ago)

    My observation here seems much like what queer hapa had about Mr. Gehry — developers are not just into profit, but into a vision for that profit, one that does not include the apparently undesirable or expendable occupants of the land those developers wish to build upon.

    I also agree that the primary social responsibility of any for-profit business is, surprise, to make more money than they spend! It’s just that, in this era of business where the focus is supposed to be on the stakeholders, how little emphasis is really still given to the community and potential customers, it’s just depressing, really. It may show the primary responsibility being carried out, but that still shows if not moral cowardice, at least a failing to observe the trends of business ethics in America towards even a half-effort toward humanitarian treatment toward stakeholders. (McDonalds offering ‘healthy’ options right next to the Big Mac and $1 cheeseburger is one such half-effort)

    P.S. I know, it’s a big, BIG post, but it’s better than a double post. Okay, last point. LaToya, in your interesting relationship between the community, developers, and government, I would say if talking about blighted communities populated mostly by low-income households, I wouldn’t think the neighborhood would have the power to influence the hand of the developer on its own, who may have many more resources on hand to control how and who lives where and for what price. Unless the government is controlled by and actively regulating in favor of the aforementioned communities, it seems that the developers in question have the best “hand” in the triangle. They have the most freedom to do anything to get the most profit and if building more commercial buildings, condos, and getting rid of “nuisances” will do it, they will do it time and again.

    Really good article, this is.

  49. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    As an update -

    I am really working on Part Two: Race, Class, and Gentrification & Part Three: Controlled Social Blight vs. Gentrification.

    I also realized that I was highly remiss in not mentioning PG County in my intital analysis, the majoroty black enclave in MD which happens to be the seat of black wealth - and also holds some of the most impoverished areas. I’ll try to get to that in another post.

    The “problem” with these kind of posts is that these issues are so sprawling - there are thousands of factors that go into gentrification and the links between causes and effects can be grim. When so many things are working in tandem, it is hard to know where to focus.

    Michelle - I expanded ,my research to include LA trends.

    Colin -

    “McDonald’s? Marketing to kids? Unhealthy, cheap foods? That could be a whole other part, LaToya!”

    It actually is a big part - it’s up there with food being a social issue, which I’ve been meaning to tackle but haven’t had the time. I
    I’ll mention food choices when I talk about ghetto blight, but it really needs its own post - and I really need to find that article (was it in the Utne?) about the food wars having a classist and a racist and a size-ist angle. The assumption is that people need to make smart choices about food - but does everyone have equal access?

    Whew.

    I’m still working on it, y’all, but keep the ideas coming!

  50. Fiqah wrote:

    Latoya: this really was a fantastic piece and I have sent it to all my fellow brownificationers. Thanks again!

  51. Colin wrote:

    Anyone able to give a good article on the effects of TIFs on a local community, not just in terms of gentrification, but also in terms of education and how the future monies may be doled out? I could try, but people like LaToya are such great writers on here, seems they’d be great to read!

  52. Brazy wrote:

    And what is being done? I live in Brklyn NY, and although I am only a 17 year old, I notice. My corner stores are being brought out and replaced with large shopping centers. Parks I consider *decent* enough to play ball in, are being taken away and replaced by little box like homes. My downtown shopping area is being built up with condos. Areas around my neighborhood with mostly black families are being spotted with Whites and Jews. Yet and still the Black council my mother votes for lives in on of those condos, and we get pushed aside and backed up every time a bills and rent clash.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.