More Notes on Gentrification
by Latoya Peterson
I came across an interesting piece on Boing Boing where the author is trying to reconcile his gentrified reality.
In “Your Money or Your Life: A Lesson on the Front Stoop,” Douglas Rushkoff recounts being mugged in his neighborhood. The experience jarred him for a variety of reasons:
In the meantime, I posted a note about my strange and frightening experience to the Park Slope Parents list–a rather crunchy Internet community of moms, food co-op members, and other leftie types dedicated to the health and well- being of their families and their decidedly progressive, gentrifying neighborhood. It seemed the responsible thing to do, and I suppose I also expected some expression of sympathy and support.
Amazingly, the very first two emails I received were from people angry that I had posted the name of the street on which the crime had occurred. Didn’t I realize that this publicity could adversely affect all of our property values? The “sellers’ market” was already difficult enough! With a famous actor reportedly leaving the area for Manhattan, does Brooklyn’s real estate market need more bad press? And this was before the real estate crash.
I was stunned. Had it really come to this? Did people care more about the market value of their neighborhood than what was actually taking place within it? Besides, it didn’t even make good business sense to bury the issue. In the long run, an open and honest conversation about crime and how to prevent it should make the neighborhood safer. Property values would go up in the end, not down. So these homeowners were more concerned about the immediate liquidity of their town houses than their long-term asset value — not to mention the actual experience of living in them. And these were among the wealthiest people in New York, who shouldn’t have to be worrying about such things. What had happened to make them behave this way?
Eventually, Rushkoff’s pondering leads him to start questioning the nature of displacement in neighborhoods:
Why, I wondered aloud on my blog, was I struggling to make $4,500-per-month rent on a two- bedroom, fourth- floor walk-up in this supposedly “hip” section of Brooklyn, when I could just as easily get mugged somewhere else for a lot less per month? Was my willingness to participate in this runaway market part of the problem?
The detectives who took my report drove the point home. One of them drew a circle on a map of Brooklyn. “Inside this circle is where the rich white people from Manhattan are moving. That’s the target area. Hunting ground. Think about it from your mugger’s point of view: quiet, tree-lined streets of row houses, each worth a million or two, and inhabited by the rich people who displaced your family. Now, you live in or around the projects just outside the circle. Where would you go to mug someone?”
Back on the World Wide Web, a friend of mine–another Park Slope writer–made an open appeal for my family to stay in Brooklyn. He saw “the Slope” as a mixed-use neighborhood now reaching the “peak of livability” that the legendary urban anthropologist Jane Jacobs idealized. He explained how all great neighborhoods go through the same basic process: Some artists move into the only area they can afford–a poor area with nothing to speak of. Eventually, there are enough of them to open a gallery. People start coming to the gallery in the evenings, creating demand for a coffeehouse nearby, and so on. Slowly but surely, an artsy store or two and a clique of hipsters “pioneer” the neighborhood until there’s significant sidewalk activity late into the night, making it safer for successive waves of incoming businesses and residents.
Of course, after the city’s newspaper “discovers” the new trendy neighborhood, the artists are joined and eventually replaced by increasingly wealthy but decidedly less hip young professionals, lawyers, and businesspeople–but hopefully not so many that the district completely loses its “flavor.” Investment increases, the district grows bigger, and everyone is happier and wealthier.
Still, what happens to the people who lived there from the beginning–the ones whom the police detective was talking about? The “natives”? This process of gentrification does not occur ex nihilo.
While I liked his reasoning on his own choices and culpability later on in the piece, I kept getting stuck where he describes the process. Is gentrification really that simple?
Then I realized what was bothering me: the presentation of gentrification as an organic process, starting with young starving artists (who then must be compelled to open a gallery, what else do artists do?) and ending with a more moneyed populace coming to chase the newly cool neighborhood. Then, the cycle is supposed to repeat.
But where is the role of the state in this discussion?
We’ve covered gentrification quite a bit on Racialicious, but we haven’t really spent time discussing the necessary power dynamics involved to completely displace a community.
Back when I wrote The Gentrification Shuffle, I didn’t think too much about the role of the state in encouraging gentrification. However, over the years, I’ve been paying more attention to exactly how this happens. My neighborhood was specifically chosen to be “revitalized” and was actually a part of a six year long state initiative to get young families and couples to populate this area. The initiative was fairly successful. There is a lot more income flowing to my part of the city, far more than before, and they continue to make small neighborhood improvements. The demographics have started to shift, but not quickly – most of the people in rent controlled housing stayed put, and while the new additions to the neighborhood require more money to enjoy, most of the mom and pop shops and restaurants are still in business.
Unfortunately, this is not the case in many areas close by. A lot of small businesses are closing because of hits to their business or loss of municipal benefits that allowed them to keep their doors open. In addition, some areas are specifically being remade to target a certain type of new resident, one with mounds of disposable income. Shops that do not fit the new vision of the neighborhood are encouraged to close either with buy outs or leveraged pressure by the city.
Prior to the new stadium, Southeast DC* was one of the places where the government used eminent* domain to take privately owned land and change it into what they wanted – in this case, an area known for slums and city owned senior citizen housing was torn down to make way for a new mall. When the mall failed to attract the type of stores they hoped, the city closed them down. Now, a new plan – valued at a $2 billion dollar current investment with $10 billion more proposed – has been launched to great fanfare, basing the new Waterfront around Nationals Ballpark and the new headquarters for the Department of Transportation.
This map is provided by JDLand.com, one resident’s documentation of the changes in the SE area. On her site the map above is interactive, and hovering over the areas provides a brief description of what is to come.
If you look at the residential area on the map, you notice that of the four major projects listed (Capitol Quarter, Foundry Lofts/Yards, Velocity Condos, 909 New Jersey Avenue) only one indicates subsidized units. (The Capper Mixed Income Building is proposed, but does not have a timeline for development.) The other projects indicate that there will be market rate housing available, defined by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) to mean:
In District of Columbia, the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment is $1,288. In order to afford this level of rent and utilities, without paying more than 30% of income on housing, a household must earn $4,293 monthly or $51,520 annually. Assuming a 40-hour work week, 52 weeks per year, this level of income translates into a Housing Wage of $24.77.
In District of Columbia, a minimum wage worker earns an hourly wage of $7.55. In order to afford the FMR for a two-bedroom apartment, a minimum wage earner must work 131 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. Or, a household must include 3.3 minimum wage earner(s) working 40 hours per week year-round in order to make the two bedroom FMR affordable.
In District of Columbia, the estimated mean (average) wage for a renter is $25.41 an hour. In order to afford the FMR for a two-bedroom apartment at this wage, a renter must work 39 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. Or, working 40 hours per week year-round, a household must include 1.0 worker(s) earning the mean renter wage in order to make the two-bedroom FMR affordable.
Monthly Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments for an individual are $674 in District of Columbia. If SSI represents an individual’s sole source of income, $202 in monthly rent is affordable, while the FMR for a one-bedroom is $1,131.
A unit is considered affordable if it costs no more than 30% of the renter’s income.
The picture isn’t so rosy for those of us making above minimum wage either. In the introduction to their 2008 report, the NLIHC describes the other gaps in the space between paid wages and the rental wage:
While there were roughly 1.7 million minimum wage earners in the U.S. before the rate was increased in 2007, most Americans earn more than the minimum wage for every hour they work. The median hourly wage in this country is just under $16.00.
This analysis estimates that nationwide the average renter earns around $13.94 an hour. As Figure 1 illustrates, a full-time job at the national mean renter wage falls short of providing enough income to afford even a one-bedroom home at the average FMR. Only a household that averages 50 hours per week year-round – with no unpaid time off – can afford the national average FMR for a two-bedroom unit at the national mean renter wage.
In a fascinating report called “A Place to Call Home,” written by the Foster and Adoptive Parent Advocacy Center (FAPAC) as a policy paper for the Moriah Fund, the link between DC’s affordable housing crisis and child welfare is explored. While the majority of the 2004 paper focuses on the destabilization of families and the vulnerabilities of foster children in this environment, the study reveals some facts about the housing crisis that cannot be ignored:
For renters with annual incomes below $10,000, the Washington region has a shortfall of almost 40,000 affordable housing units. The supply of affordable housing meets the demands of less than 50% of the area’s neediest renters. (Housing in the Nation’s Capital, Fannie Mae Foundation, 2003) A minimum wage employee earns $6.15/hour, and can afford no more than $320/month in rent.
Ironically, the average monthly cost of a reserved parking space in downtown Washington, DC is $280. (Affordable Housing: Designing An American Asset, National Building Museum exhibit brochure, 2004)
Incomes for people living in the District have not kept pace with housing prices; from January 1999 to March 2003, the sale price of homes rose four times faster than income, and the price of rentals rose three times faster. (PolicyLink Report, Fall 2003) In addition to the increase in the cost of existing housing, there has been a loss of affordable housing units due to a variety of factors, including conversion of private market affordable rental housing to high-end rentals or condos in emerging markets, expiration of long-term government contracts for privately owned subsidized developments (Section 8 contracts operated by the DC Housing Authority), a decrease in stock of rental units subsidized by HUD, and the production of HOPE VI housing, which replaces fewer units than the number of public housing units demolished. (Housing in the Nation’s Capital)
For many people, it is no longer possible to live in the District of Columbia without housing assistance. The resources of the child welfare system are strained as staff and advocates try to help families secure what minimal affordable housing that is available. Although financial assistance is available for housing through a number of federal and local programs, these programs fall far short of meeting the need. There are approximately 35,000 people on the waiting list for Housing Choice Vouchers, a program funded through the federal Family Unification Project (formerly Section 8).
This program is currently 100% full.
Of the 930 confirmed housing units in Southeast, 91 are flagged to be “workforce rate units” and an additional 111 are to be subsidized and/or section 8 units.
While this ratio may change once the Capper project is approved**, the stark realities of affordable housing and challenges in city planning will not be resolved any time soon.
So, I’ll open up the floor. Readers, what do you think is the role of the state in ensuring affordable housing for its residents?
* Corrected as per Blanc2 in the comments.
*As per JD in the comments,the area in question is Southeast. She also notes the Capper project has been approved.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
JD wrote:
Hi–Thanks for linking to my site. A few things:
1. It’s all actually in Southeast DC, not Southwest. A common mistake.
2. Capper’s redevelopment is not only approved, but is already well underway. 300 units of low-income housing (mostly for seniors) in two buildings are already completed, and the first phase of townhouses are under construction, with residents starting to move in. The numbers you quote above are just for the townhouse portion of the redevelopment; by the time the entire Capper redevelopment is complete, the 700 former Capper/Carrollsburg public housing units will be replaced with 700 new units plus more than 800 workforce- and market-rate units.
The city council has passed an inclusionary zoning rule in the city (though I’m not sure if it’s active yet)–worth a Google to find out more about it.
–jd
Posted 12 May 2009 at 9:09 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@JD –
Thanks for coming through! I’ll correct it in the piece.
Posted 12 May 2009 at 9:43 am ¶
Katie wrote:
I call bullshit on the Rushkoff article. Big developers are constantly scouting poor neighborhoods for large parcels of property to buy. It’s ridiculous to assume that it’s some sort of trickle-up phenomenon where rich folks only gradually think it’d be a good investment. Often, they don’t live there, but they might own property there.
I also dislike his implication that artists are moving in from outside. Of COURSE there could never be artists already living WITHIN a poor urban community.
Posted 12 May 2009 at 10:49 am ¶
Blanc2 wrote:
Gentrification and government-driven urban redevelopment are two distinct, albeit sometimes interrelated, concepts. True gentrification does occur organically. It is the accumulated change effected by numerous individual housing decisions. It is a “bottom up” process in that generally it is not planned by anybody in government (at least not at the beginning). The process generally results in permanent, lasting change to a neighborhood precisely because of its organic growth.
At the same time, governments in urban areas are often involved in “top down” redevelopment that, as you note, often uses the tool of eminent (not “imminent”) domain to take land from existing residents and convey it to developers. The famous “Kelo v. New London” SCOTUS opinion of a couple of years ago highlighted this process.
In many instances, perhaps most, these projects fail in the long run. Because they lack the organic roots of true gentrification, they rely on an influx of government money for their survival. The public likes to spend money to build shiny new stuff, but it generally does not like to commit money over the long run to sustain and support communities.
Eminent domain is used to displace people for all kinds of projects besides upscale housing. Detroit’s Poletown case is probably one of the most famous, but almost every major urban metro sports stadium nowadays is built on land acquired via eminent domain.
Posted 12 May 2009 at 10:55 am ¶
ephraim wrote:
the thing i don’t get about the Rushkoff article is that Park Slope has been gentrifying since at least the 70s. we’re not talking about a place “inhabited by the rich people who displaced your family,” unless you’re a mugger well into middle age.
i feel like there’s a kind of “damage control” approach to be taken with places like park slope. it’s already too far gone down the irredeemably gentrified path, so that you might as well encourage rich, white folks to stay there so that that they don’t go gentrify other places that still stand a chance.
Posted 12 May 2009 at 12:33 pm ¶
RJG wrote:
The Park Slope Parenting List part of the essay reminds me of how there is a lot of pushback by those who live around the Gowanus Canal wrt the fact that the water there has insane levels of pollution.
First, when the EPA (?) wanted to test air within homes to make sure the chemicals that have lingered in the Gowanus haven’t entered theier homes, and if there were notable levels present in the air, offer to have the government properly seal cracks along their window frames and so on in order to help protect their air quality, and now pushback about how the government is considering making the Gowanus Canal a superfund site.
Both had people pushing back because if they found out they had chemicals present in the air at home or any kind of major recent admission that the Gowanus isn’t the best water in the universe “oh god think of the property values!”.
I absolutely can’t process wanting people to shut up about bad things because then the apartment/house you live would lose value. Wanting to ignore problems and let them continue to harm others (including yourself!) absolutely boggles me.
Posted 12 May 2009 at 12:45 pm ¶
lunanoire wrote:
As someone who is the 3rd generation (that I know of) to experience gentrification in my family, this issue is RAW.
The role of the state is currently insufficient to help the needs of low-income residents. At several conferences related to POC/wealth/community development, several panelists (such as Jim Carr of National Community Reinvestment Coalition) said that the economic gains of the last 30 years could be lost in this economic crisis.
I had an internship assignment to search for strategies to ensure adherence to an inclusionary zoning ordinance. However, in that area (downtown L.A.) there is a major loophole: developers have the choice between building affordable units in the development, building affordable units elsewhere (usu in a low-income neighborhood), or contributing $ to a city fund to build affordable units. Guess what they usually choose? This developer in particular was so against affordable housing that he was suing the city to avoid any of the 3 choices regarding a different downtown development.
If you like, I can see what panelists and orgs have to say at the annual affordable housing and community development conference hosted by the american bar association this month.
Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. – This case that set in place a hierarchy of land uses. As a result, pig farms and waste treatment plants are usually not built near homes. Also, it allows areas to keep land parcels huge and prohibit subdivisions to legally discriminate against people w/ less $/ POC/ people who would live in smaller homes & apartments.
Kelo v. City of New London continues this mentality as described above. I read/heard a story that Mayor Fenty wanted to close a school in DC b/c according to him it had low performance. This was not the case. In fact, it was a high-achieving public school w/ involved parents. The parents view it as a land grab by the city.
Also “wanting people to shut up about bad things because then the apartment/house yo live in would lose value” is related to the problems of middle class and wealthier white people who end up w/ Columbine situations. The slogan Silence = Death applies to so many situations
Posted 12 May 2009 at 1:24 pm ¶
Eva wrote:
I have seen gentrification many times over in NYC. I first saw it on the Upper West Side in the 1960’s, when Lincoln Center was built in what was “Hell’s Kitchen” (where I was born.) That gentrification worked its way north. When I went to high school, the upper west side was considered a dangerous area; there were a lot of SRO hotels and if you saw the movie “The Panic in Needle Park” with Al Pacino (made in 1970), that’s what Broadway in the 1970’s was like.
I came back to NYC in 1980 and saw, to my shock that the upper west side had become completely gentrified. What the city had done was to tear down the SRO (single room occupancy) hotels. That drove up the property values and suddenly people wanted to move in the area; many long time residents were (and are since it’s continuing to move uptown) pushed out because landlords realized they could get more for their apartments, so they raised the rent.
Posted 12 May 2009 at 1:40 pm ¶
Eva wrote:
Just wanted to explain.
The upper west side was a smaller area to gentrify than Harlem. Central Park West, Riverside Drive and West End Avenue were always upper middle class to rich, while Amsterdam and Columbus avenues were pretty working class/poor areas. What was gentrified were those avenues. Broadway has also changed as well.
Posted 12 May 2009 at 1:42 pm ¶
Slush wrote:
A bit of local politics for any others in DC – the quite popular Fenty administration has been systematically whittling away at affordable housing in favor of expensive condos pretty much any chance they get. I apologize at the moment I haven’t time to provide sources or specific evidence on this topic, but it’s not hard to find. When you’re talking about state/local involvement in gentrification, city officials have a ton of power and input on the process.
Posted 12 May 2009 at 2:20 pm ¶
Phil Deeze wrote:
Slush,
The “condofication” of Washington, DC started during the Anthony Williams administration. Fenty’s just continuing what was an 8 year trend before he even took office.
Witness the Penn Quarter phenomenon which transformed a 12-hour city into more of an 24-hour city where the offices didn’t empty directly onto the 14th St. Bridge or out to the Beltway for city workers to flock home. Many of those folks are now staying in town, Penn Quarter, in particular. Heck, Penn Quarter (the neighborhood where Verizon Center is for those unfamiliar with DC) wasn’t even known as Penn Quarter amongst the locals.
And, by the way, these condos in DC are not cheap. Even in the neighborhoods that are still gentrifying block-by-block. And the growing pains work both ways. Everyone is affected. The area is policed differently. And voices are heard differently at the District Building by the City Council. And the area around the Nats Stadium as well as the perception of it (inside the city and outside) are proof of that.
Posted 12 May 2009 at 2:58 pm ¶
queerhapa wrote:
What’s always bothered me about the “OH no! Skinny jeans-wearing hipsters are gentrifying the neighborhood!” meme is how much it focuses on the micro behaviors and interactions of individuals. But bashing hipsters (or their older counterpart, the yuppies with strollers) isn’t going to make gentrification go away. What I appreciate about this post is the acknowledgment of the macro, *structural* factors: the role of the market and the role of the state. Eminent domain, corporate welfare (aka “tax breaks”), police surveillance, BIDs (business improvement districts), private-public partnerships, redlining, historic preservation agencies–all of these contribute to the turning over of neighborhoods from the working-class to the affluent.
And are folks familiar with the right to the city movement? Check it out: http://www.righttothecity.org/
Posted 12 May 2009 at 3:05 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
I think the state should have a direct role…in consultation with housing/planning experts, community organizations and the finance industry (yes). Its role should be to balance short and long term interests of these concerns. Now what that role is…. or was the past several years…
I’m trying to get a handle on the nexus between the “organic” process and the financing and grant money that flows through intermediaries like public-private partnerships and non-profits.
Bear in mind the people that work for such entities are the ones that frequent the new art gallery co-op and may even associate with “skinny jeans”. This is an anecdotal observation from my job (within a major housing organization), but it should be noted.
Often (not always) newer residents come from the same circles (universities/families) as those who (1) can afford non-profit work or (2) have ownership in the private entities that make up part of the pub/private partnershp. (It’s worth checking out the boards/affiliations with these organizations.) Their families may attend the same fundraisers (such is DC) which leads to philanthropic endeavors (foundations/grants/LLCs).
This doesn’t mean that the new owners get money from the ‘rents. It does mean that they have direct access to capital and most important – the access to those who know how to naviagate the system.
[I spent Sunday at the yards with a friend who was looking for a new place. She picked the Jefferson]
Posted 12 May 2009 at 4:36 pm ¶
Mike wrote:
If we still believe in capitalism then the most basic purpose of an urban neighborhood is to provide goods and services that can be exchanged for food. It is okay if some of the economy is inward (the neighborhood selling to itself or servicing itself) but unless some of the neighborhood is producing something of external value that keeps the food flowing in from the countryside, the neighborhood must die.
The gentrification debate is often based around the concepts of rights and history and belonging, of newcomers and outsiders, which is fine, but, we’ve got to get some of the economics right.
When I hear about gentrification, the first question I ask myself is something like this: why was the old population not able to create enough external economic activity to keep the money flowing in? why is the new population able to generate more external economic activity than the displaced?
There really is a point at which gentrification is inevitable. If the population of a neighborhood isn’t able to feed itself, it is a tax savings to a city just to wipe it away. If the jobs available in a city are not suitable for its domestic population (whether education or skillset) a city has to displace them with workers that fit the requirements.
That’s not what should happen though. Every worker should have received a good education and job training, and zoning laws, trade policies and transportation policy shouldn’t separate the local population from the valuable work that they could do.
Posted 12 May 2009 at 9:39 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@queerhapa//Mike –
One of the things I am pondering now is how the market forms and how the market and the state can inform each other.
In some areas, the pricing is market driven. People want to pay for the right to live in certain areas and that drove the price up. As Mike said, basic economics.
However.
From the city to the suburbs, I’ve noticed pockets of redevelopment that don’t fit this pattern. Basically, the area’s market can’t bear the luxury that is being sold – there isn’t enough demand at that level. So there are a lot of half-empty new buildings at one price level, and a lot of moderately priced units with waiting lists at another.
If a property is sitting on the market for over a year, with more than half of their units still available (and with one of these places offering three free months rent just to move in), why wouldn’t the property adjust the price to meet demand?
This is something I am going to have to research.
Posted 12 May 2009 at 11:59 pm ¶
Blanc2 wrote:
There are multiple forces that bring change to neighborhoods. The classic gentrification model — what people normally mean when they say “gentrification” — is the “trickle in” model described. At the other end of the spectrum are government-driven “urban renewal” projects.
In between these two is the phenomenon described by a poster above, of developers looking about for blocks of property that can be acquired cheaply and then redeveloped into upscale housing, or commercial structures, to be sold at a profit. This is often called “spec” (for “speculative”) development.
There is considerable risk on the part of the developer in undertaking this kind of speculative project. The developer must come up with cash money to acquire the land. Often he will mortgage his house and everything else he owns to do this.
In acquiring the land, the developer is betting, based on a guess or a “gut” feeling, which he hopes is an educated one, that the area will support a market for upscale housing once it is built.
Sometimes a developer guesses wrong. In this case, he is stuck with an albatross, which includes both the debt on his residence and the construction debt on the project, plus the property tax, association fees, utilities and other carrying costs. This typically drives the developer into insolvency.
The project is also an albatross for the construction lender, which faces the Hobson’s choice of taking back the failed project (via foreclosure) only to pay the carrying costs itself as it tries to marke the project.
To mitigate the risk involved, larger “spec” developments tend to be reactive, not proactive. That is, they tend to occur in areas that have already exhibited some evidence of gentrification activity, something that shows a likely market for the housing once it is built. In a dense urban market like DC or San Francisco, this requires a fairly intimate familiarity with local market conditions and demographic trends.
Posted 13 May 2009 at 9:16 am ¶
D.C. Lurker wrote:
Latoya, (Your 11:59 response) — I’ve often wondered the same thing, especially now that I’ve searhed high and low for an apartment that doesn’t exceed 38 percent of my income in D.C. proper, and isn’t 8 miles from a Metro stop, in a landfill. Right now, perhaps some of that price recalictrance of which you write results from the highly leveraged positions many commercial real estate developers found themselves in after the financing spigot dried up. Before they could stop borrowing anymore, perhaps they put so much borrowed money into those shiny chrome fixtures and water fountains in the condo lobbies, that they can’t *afford* to lower prices too much for the homeless, lower-income masses and break even. And, while cutting prices may provide some return on the investment, it doesn’t lend to covering all the pricey services that inevitably were part of the development’s upkeep. Now, that doesn’t mean developers can’t convert those pretty condos into more affordable apartments with scaled-back maintenance all the time, but it all depends on how much of their shirts these folks are willing to lose.
I admit I like shiny, but I value functional and affordable more (defined as leaving me with more than 10 cents to save). Hell, I came here because I liked that I didn’t have to pay New York City rents. All that has changed. I *love* the vibrance of some parts of the city, seriously, but I think local planners and private developers overestimated. Something must give, because people gotta live somewhere.
Posted 13 May 2009 at 1:10 pm ¶
queerhapa wrote:
@Mike: What if we *don’t* believe in capitalism? What if we believe that the true function of a neighborhood is community, and not profit?
I know, I know, crazy utopian thinking…
Posted 14 May 2009 at 3:17 pm ¶
Mike wrote:
@queerhapa
“What if we *don’t* believe in capitalism? What if we believe that the true function of a neighborhood is community, and not profit?”
I know this was a little bit rhetorical, but, let me respond somewhat seriously (and completely off topic).
It isn’t impossible to bail on the system, but, it gets harder in the city. There are some basics that need to be worked out in a non-capitalistic way: food, water, shelter. The food has to come from somewhere. Non-capitalistic farm villages can grow food for themselves, commune style. City neighborhoods, even if they use every square inch of land, probably will need to partner with outside growers to make a system. And the city neighborhood should have something to the growers.
This is why big communism works well with cities but micro-communism within capitalism fails. In big communism farms and cities and the transportation that links them are all part of the program: from each according to his/her ability and to each according to his/her need. In communism within capitalism when part of your project is an urban neighborhood, there needs to be also be a farming component and a transportation component to your project as well.
Posted 14 May 2009 at 5:22 pm ¶
thuvtrik wrote:
I think it is safe to assume that the state, and the corporatocracy generally, have a vested interested in maintaining the current system of perpetual displacement, etc.
I agree with queerhapa about the typical lack of analysis of the state’s role in these debates.
Posted 19 May 2009 at 4:38 am ¶
chicagorose wrote:
“what do you think is the role of the state in ensuring affordable housing for its residents?”
To be honest? Can’t think of any instance in my lifetime of my home town that it didn’t lead down the garden path of good intentions to a dead end. During my parent’s lifetime, low income housing had been a temporary state, a way station for securing funds to move up and out.
Currently wondering what havoc will city goverment wreak on housing with this: Washington Park, which had become a sort of racial buffer zone between most of Hyde Park and the rest of the South Side in Chicago, has been tentatively slated for the 2016 Olympics. They don’t find out until Oct. 2nd, 2009 according to link, http://www.hydepark.org/parks/washington/Olympiccomm.htm , but how it will impact the area seems of primary concern.
My thoughts have been, what role does ethnicity Positively play in self sustaining urban communities? At what point do we cut out the middle men of government urban development and take back the reigns? When I used to live in Chicago, there were Mexican communities, Polish communities, black communities, and in earlier generations, firmly established Irish and Italian communities, and often borders were blurred. Growing up where I did (Washington and Hyde Park), you could see a huge disparity in living conditions in parts of black neighborhoods you simply didn’t see in others. And I used to ask my parents why. Their answer was simple. Other immigrant populations pooled resources and remained cohesive. In the South Side’s black community, which had been a richly diverse and economic success story (for instance the Bronzeville area, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas,_Chicago#Bronzeville and 47th Street, http://chicago.urban-history.org/district/47street/47street.htm), our strength was in the fact that we had no choice, we could not live anywhere else, we were not catered to save in the black community, our money frequently, did not line anyone’s pockets who didn’t also reside in it. Once that dynamic changed due to civil rights, the areas were virtually bled out, of both its established professional middle class base and its newly growing upwardly mobile. We bailed on ourselves. And removed viable housing in the act. Slumlords took completely over.
In regards to the “Gentrification has Nothing to Do with White Hipsters” article, I get just as angry at blacks who tut-tut with frustration at the stagnant conditions or actions of lower income people, ala Tami’s piece “I Colonize”, as with developers or white hipsters; at some point, we need to point out the elephant in the room: our own Black Flight and our own Regentrification. You can’t simply come back to the ‘hood generations later and be pissed off that everything’s not Kool & The Gang when certain segments don’t relish your existence based on shared skin tone and your own personal success story. I knew of plenty immaculately maintained dwellings right in the heart of the ghetto, undisturbed. Those were owned by the few that never left. If people percieve you share your fate alongside their own, or at the very least maintain your business there, and not that you are merely the beneficiary of up for grabs territory, they tend to respect you. A locked gate sends so many ugly messages, it practically screams “Kick me”.
Posted 26 May 2009 at 6:11 pm ¶
chicagorose wrote:
Oops. Meant to say that “A locked gate *can send* so many ugly messages”.
Posted 26 May 2009 at 6:21 pm ¶