Major metropolitan cities like New York City are home to a myriad of cultural and social enclaves, each unique and distinct from one another. Throughout the life of the city, these neighborhoods have exhibited change as the migration patterns and consumption preferences of the population have adapted to the times as well. These changes in preferences are the response to social, political, and infrastructural developments that are brought forth. With a population just over 8.5 million, New York City is the largest metropolitan city in the United States and has over twice the population of the second-largest city: Los Angeles (3.97 million). This expansive community is divided into five boroughs, with fifty-five sub-boroughs identified within. Sub-boroughs are groups of census tracts with at least 100,000 residents whose boundaries roughly define community areas or neighborhoods. Over the past decade there has been great internal migration within the city that has led to the gentrification of these sub-boroughs/neighborhoods demographically, which has also led to the economic growth of these areas.
b. United States
Urban America is experiencing a period of massive change socioeconomically as affluent residents are deciding to move into areas that were previously underinvested and predominately-poor. This, in essence, is gentrification: a rapid reinvestments in these poor communities. With the increase in wealthy population, housing development has grown leading to an increase in housing prices that can force out some of the previous tenants who can no longer afford the higher prices. There is a debate whether gentrification is good or bad for neighborhoods, but the answer varies when looking at the question from a different perspective. For example, gentrification is good for the new tenants who desire this neighborhood with higher prices and new amenities, but gentrification is bad for the current tenants who are being forced out due to the growth in prices.
Over the past decade, the United States has experienced a period of accelerated gentrification in their fifty largest cities. Specifically, twenty percent of their eligible census tracts actually gentrified compared to 8.6% from 1990-2000. This growth points towards a preference of change and revitalization of neighborhoods.
c. New York City
In New York City, census tracts have exhibited above average gentrification in eligible census tracts as 29.8% of eligible tracts gentrified, according to a report done by Governing.com using American Community Survey Data. In the previous period from 1990-2000, only 9% of eligible tracts gentrified. The categorization of gentrification used is based on a 2005 report by Lance Freeman from Columbia University and will be elaborated on in the literature review below. From 2006-2016 New York City’s Average Per Capita Income, Median House Value, and Average Gross Rent Increased.
d. Hypothesis
This paper will be examining a hypothesis that gentrified and non-gentrified inexpensive neighborhoods are prone to greater growth in population, young working age individuals, home values, rent rates, housing units built, per capita income, and educational-attainment levels. These changes can also be complemented by increased “social amenities” such as bars, nightclubs, and restaurants that the growing working age (18-34 years old) population prefers, as well as an increase in affluent individuals.
II. Literature Review and State of Research
a. “Vanishing New York”
The gentrification of New York City has been a process enveloped by decades of policymakers. Author Jeremiah Moss (2017) describes the current state of growth in New York City as “a calculated takeover by elites decades in the making” in the book Vanishing New York: How a Great City Lost its Soul. This accusation is backed up by substantive evidence that the “money-hungry” politicians, real estate financiers, and city planners have been passively creating blueprints for the city’s demise as they actively attempted to save it. In the 1970s, New York City attempted to engage in municipal disinvestment. This term is a description of an urban planning process where “a city or town or other municipal entity decided to abandon or neglect an unproductive zone.” During this time period, New York City was experiencing a decline in population and New York’s housing commissioner, Roger Starr, introduced a policy called “Planned Shrinkage.” This policy was an attempt to reduce the poor population and increase the tax base, the logistics behind this policy would be to abandon investments in troubled neighborhoods and direct them to areas that could still be salvaged. Reduction in funding meant that some areas were left without adequate fire departments and police services escalating crime. This would lead to the abandonment of poor housing units that could be demolished and redeveloped by real estate tycoons. This policy was short-lived but had an impact on shaping impoverished neighborhoods in the Bronx.
Moss continued to argue that Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City from 2002-2013, continued upon this same trek as he rezoned forty percent of the city in an effort to redevelop and revitalize neighborhoods. His policies of bike lanes and pedestrian plazas have been accepted and duplicated in numerous cities around the world, yet the negative externalities of these policies have been New York a “Potemkin village of what the city used to be.” This book is an angrily passionate indictment of policy makers in the city for several decades. It provides a background on the city’s history of policies, but fails to effectively use data to support these accusations.
b. Urban Revival
Urbanization and gentrification is actively researched by city planners who attempt to understand the migration patterns of their community and how they can effectively control negative effects they may stem from drastic population changes. Victor Couture and Jessie Handbury (2015) explore the causes of urban growth in their paper Urban Revival in America, 2000-2010. This paper discusses the reversal in housing consumption preferences among young professionals in the previous decade compared to trends from 1970-2000 leading to large increases in young professionals near the Central Business District (CBD) of a city. Their research finds that changes in preferences for proximity to “highly urbanized amenities like theaters, restaurants, and bars have more explanatory power than changes in the job and amenity environment” (Couture and Handbury, 2015, 1). This preference change exhibits a reversal of suburbanization of college graduates over the past five decades. In downtown areas the population of 25-44 year old college-educated Americans in growing three times faster than in the suburbs.
In a standard housing model, the location of households reflects a tension of people being drawn between the suburbs (where housing is cheaper) and the city (where one spends less time and money on commuting and more on housing). When you add variables of choice in preferences, the decisions change. Between 2000 and 2010, a majority of the 50 largest cities experienced faster urban growth than suburban growth in college-educated individuals. Most data represents college-educated people ranging from 18-64 years old. Couture and Handbury (2015) dissected that further to examine college-educated downtown growth in four age brackets: 18-24 years-, 25-34 years-, 35-44, and 45-64 years-old. This data showed that a majority of the 50 largest CBSAs registered “faster urban growth for college-educated 18-24 year olds, 25-34 year olds and 35-44 year olds. However, the 45-64 age group is still urbanizing” (Couture-Handbury, 2015, 9).
Couture and Handbury (2015) studied six difference demographic groups as a dependent variable. The six groups are a combination of three age groups (25-34, 35-44, 45-64 years old) and two education groups (with a 4-year college degree and without a 4-year college degree). The other variables are amenity variables, jobs variables, and housing costs. After running regressions on these variables Couture and Handbury found that the preferences of young and college-educated individuals differ from non-college educated individuals and that “college-educated individuals are more attracted to proximity to amenities like theaters and bars, and less sensitive to house prices” (Couture-Handbury, 2015, 27).
c. Gentrification and Displacement
In his paper Displacement or Succession? Residential Mobility in Gentrifying Neighborhoods, Lance Freeman (2005) investigates the extent to which gentrification encourages displacement of the previous population. Freeman first defines gentrification academically and then explains how he quantitatively examines and defines gentrification. He states that gentrification is the process “by which decline and disinvestment in inner-city neighborhoods are reversed.” He acknowledges that the attraction of middle-class resident and incoming investment has the potential to rejuvenate economically-depressed neighborhoods. The main negative, he states, is the threat of displacement “whereby current residents are forced to move because they can no longer afford to reside in the gentrifying neighborhoods.” This fear of displacement has gained enough traction that some policymakers and community activists have become opposed to gentrification.
Freeman details two previous attempts to “empirically quantify displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods” and how they failed to find evidence of extensive displacement. The first attempt was a “succession methodology” that attempted to examine the differing characteristics of “in-movers” and “out-movers.” The second, and common approach, was to ask people why they moved out of their former residence.
The succession studies were helpful in determining the upper bound of displacement, but were unable to properly determine reasons for the lower bound departure as it did not take into account the other reasons why households move besides normal housing turnover. Succession studies can help to determine gentrification, but cannot accurately represent its effect on displacement.
Displacement studies define the displaced and the external conditions to why they moved, but because this study incorporates retrospection it fails to identify the location of their previous household.
In Freeman’s paper, he identifies five criteria to quantitatively define gentrification:
1) Be located in the central city at the beginning of the intercensal period.
2) Have a median income less than the median (40th percentile) for that metropolitan area at the beginning of the intercensal period.
3) Have a proportion of housing built within the past 20 years lower than the proportion found at the median (40th percentile) for the respective metropolitan area.
4) Have a percentage increase in educational attainment greater than the median increase in educational attainment for that metropolitan area.
5) Have an increase in real housing prices during the intercensal period.
Neighborhoods that met the first three criteria are dubbed “potentially gentrifying.” Those that met the first three but not the last two are “nongentrifying.” Neighborhoods that met all five are termed “gentrifying.” The results from his data suggest that gentrification does not have a high correlation with high levels of displacement. He further explores gentrification and its relationship with residential satisfaction. There is further examination on how gentrification affects who moves into a neighborhood by examining education attainment, income, race, and poverty status as independent variables and gentrifying, nongentrifying and all other neighborhoods as the dependent variable. The results from this regression suggest that socioeconomic status does influence who moves into neighborhoods. Characteristics of people that are most likely to move into gentrified neighborhoods are: having a high income, being White, and being college-educated. Even though displacement may be rare in gentrifying neighborhoods, policy makers and planners need to properly anticipate gentrification because of the impacts on housing affordability.
d. Social Factors of Gentrification
In Laam Hae’s (2011) paper titled, Post-industrialisation and the Gentrification of Nightlife in New York City, she pursues the idea of nightlife being an importance resource for the enhancement and promotion of gentrification in “derelict neighbourhoods.” Hae argues that nightlife establishments, such as bars and dance clubs, constitute an important foundation for the “rekindling of depressed property markets in derelict neighbourhooods by helping to generate an atmosphere of lively urban sociality.” Nightlife establishments offer importance in neighborhood gentrification as they are often associated with inner-city sub-cultures that add a desirable nature to the neighborhood. Hae recognized a social class, dubbed the “creative class” – a group of young professional in knowledge-based businesses – that demands quality cultural consumption in their cities. This class has developed a desire for unique “sub-cultural experiences” that mend their consumption patterns in regards to housing.
Bars, lounges, and dance clubs serve as spaces to encourage young urban creatives to “hang out, exchange information and form informal social networks which… contributes to the creative cultural economy of the city” (Hae, 2011, 3450). Nightlife is also an economic booster as a catalyst for gentrification. A “hipification” of a neighborhood, as she calls it, brings forth condominium apartments with new residents who in turn consume more of the amenities provided in the area. Nightlife provides a fertile location for gentrification in neighborhoods that have not yet attracted significant real estate development.
There are negatives associated with nightlife that have incurred social costs to the community. With gentrification comes an “embourgeoisement of nightlife,” a process that divides the population’s consumption habits. Government officials and academics have promoted gentrification of nightlife which has actually cost neighborhoods their identity and appeal to certain ethnic-enclaves.
III. Methodology
As stated earlier, New York City is home to five boroughs with fifty-five sub-boroughs classified by the New York City Housing department within. In beginning analysis of these sub-boroughs to determine gentrification, significant population and economic data will need to be gathered.
First, to determine gentrification in a sub-borough it will need to adhere to the following criteria to be eligible for gentrification and be categorized as “inexpensive”:
(1) Median House Value at or below the fortieth percentile;
(2) Per Capita Income at or below the fortieth percentile;
(3) Median House Value increased; and,
(4) Average Gross Rent* at or below the fortieth percentile.
A sub-borough is considered to be gentrified if:
(1) It is eligible; and,
(2) There was a percentage increase in the educational attainment level (number of college educated individuals) in the top third percentile of the entire city during that period.
*Originally, average gross rent was not factored into this definition as it might have skewed the data. In New York City in particular, rent rapidly rises based on the proximity to the central business district. After viewing the data, rent did not interfere with the classification of sub-boroughs eligible for gentrification and therefore it was included.
This data will then be referenced alongside the New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey’s data regarding Amenity-based establishment growth in a similar period. This will not determine gentrification, but will give a comparison between neighborhood population and housing gentrification and look for any possible similarities with business gentrification. There will be a small exploration on mobility of the population and whether the units are owner- or renter-occupied. Even though Lance Freeman (2005) discussed the effects of displacement with gentrification, this paper will not be pursuing that information.
Data will be collected from the American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates for 2006 and 2016. The metrics included are: Population, Per Capita Income, Median House Value, Average Gross Rent, Tenure, Educational Attainment Levels. Additional data on Business Establishments are sourced from the NYC Housing and Vacancy reports.
IV. Neighborhood and Sub-Borough Data
Out of the 55 sub-boroughs, 10 were eligible to be gentrified. And out of those 10, only 5 actually gentrified. Overall, roughly 9% of the sub-boroughs gentrified. In 2006, 22 sub-boroughs had a median house value of less than or equal to the fortieth percentile of $466,900 and 22 sub-boroughs had average rent below the fortieth percentile mark of $890.20. Also, 22 sub-boroughs had a per capita income of less than or equal to the fortieth percentile of $19,577.80. In these gentrifying neighborhoods, even though the median home value increased by 21.12%, the average gross rent for a renter-occupied unit increased by 47.14%. Overall, the sub-boroughs that gentrified according to the definition achieved greater demographic growth from 2006-2016 than all the remaining sub-boroughs averaged together. In the Appendix, one can see the maps of the five boroughs, with labels for gentrified and eligible sub-boroughs. The table below details the sub-boroughs by borough and an overview of the eligible and gentrified sub-boroughs.
Sub-Boroughs Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island Total
Total SBs 10 18 10 14 3 55
Eligible 6 3 1 0 0 10
Gentrified 2 2 1 0 0 5
a. Gentrified Neighborhoods
Below is an overview of the five sub-boroughs that experienced gentrification according to the definition of this paper.
i. Morrisania/East Tremont
These neighborhoods experienced growth in population almost three times more than the city averaged on whole. The per capita income growth in this period is 43.76% compared to a city-wide growth of 29.5% and 31.56% growth in the non-eligible sub-boroughs. Median home value six times greater than the city, yet the average monthly rent did not rise as fast as the city’s did. This drastic rise in home prices drove the number of owner-occupied unites down 15%, yet the small increase in rent only brought a 1% increase in renter-occupied units. A key contributor to the demographic change was the 96.3% increase in working population with a college degree, and a 20% increase in people age 18-34 as their housing consumption preferences are predominately short term.
In a similar time period, the New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey released data that there was a 250% increase in social amenities provided in that neighborhood. From 2000-2015, there were 74 new Food Services and Drinking Places established. From 2006-2016 there was an 8.2% increase in working population from the ages 25-64.
ii. Soundview/Parkchester
This gentrified area is unique as there was a decrease in the amount of housing units provided at in 2016 compared to 2006. It exhibited a 10.52% increase in median house value, 32.24% increase in average monthly rent, and 8.75% increase in per capita income. The per capita income increase can be shown against the 33% increase in college educated individuals. This decrease in housing units available has actually brought the most dramatic decrease in the vacancy rate of the housing units across the gentrified sub-boroughs at -32.82% This is showing that an increase in population is actually filling out the previously oversaturated housing market. There is a 3.8% increase in people who lived in their house the previous year. Economically, this area also experienced a 61% increase in the “social amenities” described in the hypothesis.
iii. Washington Heights/Inwood
Washington Heights is the only sub-borough in Manhattan that gentrified and the only one that was eligible to gentrify. Even though the median home value increase from 2006-2016, it increased less than the average for the whole city. There was a 10% increase in total housing units over the decade, yet a 14.31% population increase was unable to fill these new units. Quite interestingly enough, there was a 43% increase in young people age 18-34 that were living there. Even though there was a decrease in renter-occupied units, these people might have different housing preferences because of the very low House Value ($393,800). Because of this fact, this gentrified sub-borough boasts a 34.8% increase in the vacancy rate over the decade. With house prices increasing at a slower rate than the rest of the city, consumers took advantage of this opportunity to purchase housing units as there was a 15.82% increase in owner-occupied units over the decade compared to -4.26% in all the other sub-boroughs. There was an above average increase in “social amenities” present as well.
iv. Bushwick
Bushwick is one of the two Brooklyn neighborhoods that experienced gentrification over the past decade. The per capita income experienced an 85% increase over the decade along with a 118.71% increase in college-educated individuals. There was nearly a 50% increase in median home values. In comparison to what occurred in Washington Heights/Inwood with smaller median house value growth leading to an increase in owner-occupied housing units, the drastic increase in house values led to a 20% decrease in owner-occupied units. Even though the average monthly rent went up almost 80%, there was ~5% increase in renter occupied units. This is increase most likely occurs do to the increase 14% increase in young working population as their housing preferences are for the short term rather than the long term. There was an 83% increase in the population aged 25-34 years old and a 34% increase of 18-24 year olds which might explain the growth of 28 additional Computer System Design firms in the neighborhood.
Along with the population demography changes, Bushwick experienced enormous changes in the businesses in the neighborhood. From 2000-2015, there was a 600% increase in Arts and Entertainment establishments and well as a 301% increase in Food Services and Drinking Places present.
v. Brownsville/Ocean Hill
Interestingly, Brownsville/Ocean Hill is adjacent to Bushwick, which might have caused some spillover of data between the two areas. Brownsville actually experienced a population decrease of 6.22% over the past decade. This, coupled with the 10% increase in housing units, helps to explain part of why the vacancy rate increase from 10.89% to 12.63% over the decade. This 15.97% growth in the vacancy rate is actually very close to the average for all sub-boroughs in New York City, which is at 14.73%. There was almost a 90% increase in the percent of college educated individuals living in this area as well. In terms of the businesses present in these neighborhoods, there was no increase in Art and Entertainment establishments present, but there was a 294% increase in Food Services and Drinking Places in the area.
The chart below illustrates the percent changes over the period from 2006-2016 of Gentrified sub-boroughs compared to the remaining non-eligible sub-boroughs.
b. Inexpensive/Poor Sub-Borough Growth Compared to the entire City
The thesis of this paper also proposed that inexpensive neighborhoods who were eligible to gentrify but did not, grew faster population-wise, demographically, socio-economically, and their housing market increased faster than the remaining sub-boroughs. In the decade from 2006-2016, these ten inexpensive and gentrification-eligible sub-boroughs did in fact grow faster compared to remaining non-eligible sub-boroughs. The chart below details this information.
Inexpensive neighborhoods increased population by 7.41%, a greater increase than the rest of the city, and the number of working individuals with college degrees increased by 69.21% compared to 19.9% in the remaining sub-boroughs. Along with a raised educational attainment level came a 42.01% increase in per capita income in the inexpensive sub-boroughs, while the rest of the city only grew by 31.56%.
The housing markets also received a bump as the median house value and average monthly rent grew by 17.45% and 41.79%, respectively. The Median House Value did not increase as fast as the remaining sub-boroughs did, however there was a drastically greater growth over the decade than the whole city experiences (17.3% compared to 2.9%). Over all the boroughs, average rents did increase by 40.39%. A 9.36% increase in the housing units available was matches by a 9.68% increase in occupied units. The percent of owner-occupied units decreased by 2.07%, but this can be explained by 22.47% increase in working age population whose housing preferences are coordinated more in the short term leading to an 11.63% rise in the renter-occupied units. All-in-all, across all variables Inexpensive sub-boroughs grew twice as fast as the rest of the city with regards to demography and housing markets.
The second half to the hypothesis was that these rapidly growing sub-boroughs might also be matched with equal, if not greater, growth in the “social amenities.” Data on these “social amenities” are provided from neighborhood economic profiles provided by the office of the city Comptroller. In their reports, they examined all Public Micro Use Areas (PUMAs, same area as sub-borough) in New York City in the period from 2000-2015. When looking at the same inexpensive neighborhoods categorized above, there was an 82.41% increase in Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation establishments present. Also, there was an astounding 343.56% increase in Food Services and Drinking Places, which categorized bars, nightclubs, restaurants, etc. Also, these neighborhoods attracted a more affluent crowd as over 35,500 individuals earned incomes greater than $75,001. When looking at this data through the lens of the study done by Couture and Handbury (2015) this 22.47% increase in individuals age 18-34 has a relationship with the incoming social amenities provided in the neighborhood.
During this fifteen year period, New York City experienced a 56.33% increase in Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation establishments, a 63.54% increase in Food Services and Drinking Places, and only a 134,000 people with an income over $75,001. This data shows a correlation, not causation, between poor or inexpensive neighborhoods and the rate of growth they experience compared to the city as a whole.
V. Analysis and Discussion
The remaining five sub-boroughs that were eligible to gentrify, but did not are interesting to note as well. In the Bronx, the Throgs Neck/Co-op City neighborhood had low enough median home values and great educational growth, but per capita income was too high. More notable already gentrified areas such as Williamsburg and Bedford-Stuyvesant had tremendously high educational attainment growth, but the home values were extremely high as these places have already likely experience gentrification in a period before 2006. The Bronx had six neighborhoods eligible, Manhattan had one, and Brooklyn had three.
Out of all the boroughs, Brooklyn demographically changed the most. The graph below displays the changes across all boroughs.
There were significant changes in wealth distribution among the boroughs as well. In the Data section, Figures 1-5 present box and whisker plots of the per capita income across the boroughs. As seen, there is a great number of people in the bottom 25th percentile as well as a greater number of people in the 50th percentile and above.
Since 2006, the city of New York has had an influx of 323,309 new residents. 37% of them have moved in to Brooklyn, 29% into the Bronx, 24% into Queens, and 10% into Manhattan. Within the 323,309 population, 75% (243,154) have a four-year college degree. 45% of these individuals have moved to various neighborhoods of Brooklyn, with 19% in Manhattan and Queens respectively, 11% in the Bronx, and 5% in Staten Island. When taking into account the different metrics gathered, it is concluded that a college-educated individuals that have moved into New York City over the past decade have settled in Brooklyn. These young, working age citizens are willing to pay for the 52% increase in monthly rent over the past decade as there is also a 48% increase as there is a 247% increase in the “social amenities” that the younger generation prefers. Over the past 15 years, Brooklyn has seen a 46% increase in people with an individual income of greater than $75,001, that is 14% of the working population.
When testing this paper’s definition of gentrification, the Bronx was the only full borough that was eligible for gentrification; however, its percentage growth in college educated individuals was not in the top third percentile for all the boroughs.
This paper has not discussed transportation infrastructure changes and how that might also have influenced people’s decision making as this will be left for future versions of this research. Transportation availability is important when individuals are deciding where to live. Proximity to a train station or a mode of public transportation is especially important in a congested city like New York City as driving oneself is not the fastest nor most cost effective way of traveling or commuting. The introduction of new bus lines or a renovated train station may make a neighborhood more appealing to people seeking housing and lead to an influx in new residents. When Real Estate firms or developers research a location for a potential asset/property, public transportation availability is a big consideration as they consider what tenants this property could attract. In looking at the five gentrified sub-boroughs, 67% percent of the working population traveled to work by public transportation. In a 2016 report by Carl Bialik for FiveThirtyEight.com using rental prices for 175,000 properties in NYC, he determined that New Yorker’s were willing to pay an extra $56 per month to removed one minute off of their commute. Using aggregate data on commute times for the sub-boroughs and plotting it against average rents in the same area (shown below), it is found that one minute less of a commute from a sub-borough would roughly cost $33.
VI. Conclusion and Policy Implications
This paper chose to focus on gentrification of sub-boroughs as a collection of census tracts. In New York City, there are 2,152 census tracts with only 429 eligible to gentrify. Since 2000, almost 30% of those tracts have successfully gentrified. Still, only around 6% of the total census tracts gentrified.
The data in this paper shows that out of the 55 identified sib-boroughs, a little over 9% gentrified. These gentrifying sub-boroughs represent 10% of the city’s total population, 7% of the college-educated individuals, and 10.4% of the city’s working population. 4% of the cities “Social Amenities” are in these five gentrified areas.
After a review of all of the data, it is determined that there is a correlation between inexpensive neighborhoods and the more rapid growth they can achieve demographically and economically compared to the entire city. These low income and cheap neighborhoods only present growth possibilities for real estate developers and business entrepreneurs. As a whole, New York City is experiencing a period of tremendously fast development. At the center of this change is Hudson Yards which is possible due to major zoning reformation of the Lower West Side, transportation changes with an extension of the subway system. This massive project is an attempt to pull the main business hub of Manhattan west towards the Hudson River. Hudson Yards is set to consist of sixteen new skyscrapers, a new school, almost thirteen million square feet of developed space, as well as a renovation of the Javits Convention Center. To help make this dream a reality, the city helped with financing the project to ensure that it would be completed. With property sales lower than targeted from 2006-2015, the city stepped in and paid off around $358 million of debt. With new retail, commercial office space, residences, and more, this is certainly a project that will have major implications toward the gentrification of the Chelsea.
A project like this is a prime example of a city encouraging the redevelopment and reinvestment of a previously low-income and inexpensive neighborhood. These new structures are going to attract over 5,000 residences and help suck the center of the city west. The shops and business are added attractions that will further encourage people to move into this neighborhood. The planned transportation changes will also effectively guarantee more people will visit if not at least travel through the area. This increased volume of production will be closely watched as the major financial center of the world is experiencing a much needed structural facelift.
Understanding the reasons behind gentrification can be very important for city planners who aim to control population growths or decays. Gentrification brings with it a myriad of outcomes that can be good for some people and bad for others. It is difficult to determine which comes first, the business growth of demographic growth, as one may just in fact accelerate the other. Consumer preferences may shift, but as of now data indicates that the young, working age population prefers to live in neighborhoods that have a great number of social amenities and counter the added cost of living with the added benefit of those establishments.