To what extent is gentrification detrimental to local communities?
Gentrification is a sensitive topic throughout cities and communities alike regardless of size; the term coined by Ruth Glass, a british sociologist, in 1964; according to Dictionary.com, gentrification is “The buying and renovation of houses and stores in deteriorated urban neighborhoods by upper or middle-income families or individuals, raising property values but often displacing low-income families and small businesses.” Put in layman’s terms according to Urban Dictionary “Gentrification is when a bunch of white people move to the ghetto and open up a bunch of cupcake shops.” All jokes aside, gentrification has stirred up quite the debate about the ethicality behind the displacement of minorities due to economic instability; with both sides presenting strong arguments for and against the practice of gentrification. Those that view gentrification as a positive contribution to cities might argue that constructing new homes and buildings is a good way to support local communities by drawing in publicity, new businesses, and generating much-needed revenue to local neighborhoods. While those opposed to the idea of gentrification might make the case that local minorities and the less wealthy are being treated unfairly, being forced from their homes and left to fend for themselves, helpless against the upper class. This architectural concept has caused a discussion on whether it is ethically correct or not; are the successes of constructing new buildings and attracting new businesses worth the economic and social consequences that affect the smaller communities?
The driving forces of gentrification can be divided into three categories: supply-side factors, demand-side factors, and public policy. Supply-side factors and demand-side factors can sometimes overlap, but those that believe in supply-side factors as a cause for gentrification view it as when the price of low-income housing declines to a certain point that now looks ideal to buyers that specialize in flipping houses to renovate and significantly increase the value of the new home. On the other hand, demand-side factors work hand in hand with the supply-side in the sense that they focus more on the employment demographics and shift in cultures, this being the reason why new people move into newly gentrified neighborhoods. But these two things cannot entirely explain the reasons for gentrification. Policy factors such as government actions taken that cause the value of property to become up to city creates financial incentives for rich people to buy property in low-income communities.
One negative effect of gentrification is that it can cause extreme damage to low-income households. As rental houses are gentrified and turned into nicer condos or other family style homes, tenants will be forced out of their homes because they become unable to afford the now higher price of living in this newly gentrified community. This argument is made against gentrification because many low-income families are unable to afford the homeownership costs. This is a problem because if their neighborhood starts gentrifying, their rent costs will increase drastically, and when they become unable to pay their living expenses they are forced to move, resulting in their apartments being rented to those wealthy enough to afford it. Except most working class households have nowhere to go and are forced to leave a place they have created an emotional connection to. On top of the cost to actually move out of their homes into someplace new, many are unable to afford those expenses and sadly most of the families displaced by gentrification must resort to living on the streets contributing to the ever growing problem of homelessness within inner city streets.
“Gentrification forces low-income households to move out of gentrifying neighborhoods at a higher than normal rate.” This commonly used argument against the gentrification process has over time caused it to become accepted as a fact, yet provides no evidence to support it. In fact, gentrifying neighborhoods see less displacement of low-income households as compared to non-gentrifying neighborhoods. A good example of this occurred on a local level in South Florida neighborhoods between Linton Boulevard and Lake Ida Road. “These communities have been on the economic decline for years, suffering from structural racism.” according to activist Chuck Ridley. These smaller working-class communities and now being renovated, implementing new buildings for offices, chain restaurants, and retail stores. But the progress made has been criticized; with many making the argument that there is no way to find the balance between the development of the community and the displacement of the working class minorities that reside in the area. This claim can be proven false since the development of new stores and retailers will require new jobs to be filled, giving more working-class adults the opportunity to make a living.
Although gentrification can potentially be a successful long-term investment for cities and towns alike, the short-term sacrifices are some of the main drawbacks against gentrifying towns. “In 2003, 225,000 New York residents were forced to move out of their homes due to financial problems.” The need to evict sometimes hundreds of thousands of residents from their homes is the most problematic part of the gentrification process; yet the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term drawbacks. Many of the families that reside in a gentrified area manage to stay local, and actually, appreciate the new additions made to their communities. With the help of gentrification, parents can now raise their families in a safer environment. Having the newly gentrified community benefit their kids in the long run, hopefully resulting in successful futures for their children.
One big problem with gentrification that is often overlooked is the idea that gentrification forcing residents to move is the worst outcome that can possibly occur; this is incorrect. The possibility that people move out of a city due to financial instability and never move back, also known as “de-gentrification,” is one of the biggest risks accompanied by the gentrification process. In an interview with a Kansas City real estate representative “Due to economic decline, job loss, and foreclosure; the value of some real estate has declined to almost nothing and with the added rise in maintenance costs, nobody is willing to pay and buyers walk out on it.” Vacant homes can become fire hazards or trap houses and are eventually bulldozed by the city government. This is a huge waste of time and investments, these problems are often overlooked since local residents are not directly affected yet can be detrimental to potential future investors and government support.
Another point made for gentrification is that the gentrification of historic architecture can potentially benefit communities by promoting tourism and bringing in profits. A common occurrence of low-income areas is the deterioration of historic monuments due to lack of funding and government support. When historic buildings are restored it encourages other homeowners living there to maintain their property, resulting in a positive environment and attracting buyers to the area because of the new ambiance. Other positive effects of building restoration is an increase in tax revenue; tax dollars are used to fix roads, build public parks, and open public schools. All of the long-term benefits of gentrification lead to an increase in homeownership; resulting in fewer vacant homes which are prime targets for criminals to live undetected, this, in turn, decreases crime rates. As well as an increase in support and funding for local law enforcement and other various government programs. “According to a 2008 census studying the total revenue increase in a gentrified neighborhood. Black residents with high school diplomas contributed 33 percent of the total income gain, the larger contributor of total revenue as compared to college-educated white adults who only brought in 20 percent.”
Another benefit of gentrification comes with the use of zoning laws within cities. Zoning laws support the construction of houses for the poor as well as well as pricier houses for the rich. This means as property prices go up the rate of renters increases, in turn generating an increased amount of property tax revenue. This new increase in revenue from property taxes improve community services such as schools, police departments, and hospitals. Although the zoning laws act as a way to lessen the impact of subsidized housing for low-income communities, when working-class households can no longer afford to pay their rental bills, they’re forced to move farther away from their homes and existing jobs, creating the burden of finding work in their new town and finding a way of making money to support themselves. Not to mention when local attractions such as restaurants and other businesses are replaced by upscale offices and other things such as new hipster coffee shops; locals that used to work at those old long time businesses can now either not afford to work for these new businesses created by gentrification or do not fit the specifications the new business employers are looking for, resulting in an increase in unemployment.
Another benefit of gentrification is the creation of tax revenue from underpopulated communities. Newly racially integrated neighborhoods caused by gentrification restore the communities economy, this new influx of revenue and racially diverse residents has correlated to an increase in high school graduates within that community as well as a decrease in crime rates. When run down communities are gentrified, it creates a positive environment for parents to raise their children as well as promotes a brighter future for future generations to come. As gentrified towns become beautified, property values increase, the worth of longtime homeownership equity also increases. This increase in property value as well as the increase in homeownership rates will lead to a decrease in crime, since more residents are working towards their newly set goals in life as well as trying to support themselves or their families through work. Another way gentrified neighborhoods can boost their diversity as well as their affordability, is to increase the number of affordable housing available. An increase in the regulation of the price of rent and community trusts are both good ways to help promote low income households from leaving in order to become more financially stable; even when well-off households move in to the new town.
Lastly, gentrification can lead to various health concerns. The Center of Disease Control noted that a change in living conditions because of gentrification can potentially decrease any access to healthy food, health care, public transportation, good quality schools, exercise facilities, and recreational activities. These negative effects can decrease ones mental well being, lead to an increase in violence and crime, an increase in stress levels, as well as various health implications. Families socioeconomic status, the environment of the land they live on as well as other various forms of environmental neglect such as pollution, littering, and improper disposal of waste are all factors at play and causes for health problems within communities and families. Studies show that those susceptible to to gentrification typically can have shorter life expectancies, greater chances of contracting cancer, increases in the chances of birth defects within newborns, increased chances of infant mortality. As well as other diseases such as asthma, diabetes, and other various cardiovascular diseases and disorders.
In conclusion, although gentrification is criticized with many making the argument that it leads to the displacement of minority groups due to the increase in costs of living in newly gentrifying communities, a decrease in racial and economic diversity due to the well off households buying out living spaces and outbidding renters forcing tenants to move elsewhere to increase financial stability, as well as the increase in diseases contracted due to environmental factors in part because of the displacement to unsafe housing within minority groups. While there are many criticisms to the practice of gentrifying low-income communities; gentrification has shown to decrease crime rates due to the positive environment created by the gentrification of certain architecture as well as office buildings. Not only that, but the new atmosphere, things such as new parks, schools, and stores, welcomes families into the newly done town; encouraging high school graduation which results in more working adults, which in turn contributes to the communities economy and promotes successful futures for the following generations to come. In addition to the increase in successful high school graduates,the development of department stores, retailers, and grocery stores also create new jobs to be filled, many of the high school graduates will either fill these new jobs to create financial stability for themselves or will go on to attend a state college, even furthering their education and future successes. Also, the increase in tax revenue generated from newly gentrified buildings and the businesses they bring in will call for the support of state funding and the need for government programs such as schools, police and fire departments, medicaid, and hospitals. In the end, I feel that the benefits of gentrification outweigh the pitfalls with many studies leading to the point that gentrification does not contribute to the increased displacement rates of minorities, in fact many residents are actually encouraged to stay in their newly redone community because of the positive atmosphere it creates
.