Is gentrification beneficial? This discussion will delve into the many sides of the gentrification debate with the primary scope being the financial aspect of the issue. In addition to this, the racial aspects will be examined, as well as the effects of gentrification on crime in order to develop an all encompassing analysis of the topic at hand.
The term gentrification was first introduced in 1964 by British sociologist Ruth Glass in order to explain the influx of the middle class back into the center city of London (Wynn and Deener), although the definition of this term has changed over time. It now refers to affluent residents or developers who newly invest in a neighborhood, rather than the “return to the center” (Wynn and Deener). These neighborhoods are often in up and coming cities -- technology hubs and so forth -- where the prospect of urban living is hastening (Florida). These hub cities attract large corporations and developers, as well as new businesses and skilled workers which result in a greater demand for housing and in turn, a rise in costs of housing (Florida). This large-scale public and private investment in attempts of reurbanization do not foster quality urbanism, and can negatively affect low income communities mainly consisting of renters who may be pressured into moving somewhere more affordable (Florida). Pressure is applied to these areas that were previously considered undesirable when housing is scarce in areas that are producing new jobs (Grant). This can be trying in a time where households that are rent burdened are already spending 38% of their pre-tax income on rent and 50% of pre-tax income is being spent on housing by 52% of those who fall below the federal poverty line ("In praise of gentrification").
Gentrification can usually be characterized by a change in demographics, real estate markets, land use, and culture and character (Grant). Demographics change as the median income rises, the proportion of racial minorities declines, and household sizes reduce as families are replaced by a younger demographic of singles and couples (Grant). Real estate markets are affected as rents and home prices rise (as a result of higher demand), evictions increase, rental units transition to units for ownership, and luxury housing is developed (Grant). Land use is affected by declining industrial uses and increasing domestic or business uses -- offices, high end housing, retail, and restaurants (Grant). Culture and character adjusts as standards change for what is acceptable in architecture and landscaping as well as public behavior, noise, and nuisance (Grant).
The main argument against gentrification is its impact on those who are financially unstable. Gentrification often results in lack of access to housing, public space, and a loss of community for those most negatively affected (Wynn and Deener). Profits from development outweigh keeping communities together, and high demand of housing incentivizes evictions so that rental prices can be raised (Wynn and Deener). Note that this exemplifies that renters are the ones who are at the greatest risk of being a victim of gentrification. Those who cannot afford to own property, those who are likely financially unstable and rent burdened, are most vulnerable to development. On the other hand, those who may be considered poor but were fortunate enough to own their house before their area was gentrified could greatly profit financially. Although this results in a change of demographics and still affects the community, some leave by choice, opting to “cash in” rather than stay put (Grant). This may or may not be what they want, but financially they would be better off in said situation. It could also be argued that the community as a whole is better off financially, regardless of rising rent. As individuals and developers invest in areas, a new tax base is introduced and economic activity greatly increases (Grant). Resulting from this is everything from housing to shops and restaurants to higher wage jobs, which previous residents can benefit from -- primarily being service and construction jobs (Grant). Local new shops and jobs can help alleviate commuting costs and time ("In praise of gentrification"), something that primarily affects the poor as they often must make use of public transportation. Despite these positives, as a result of new development and new standards some local businesses may be pressured out by boutiques and restaurants, and industrial jobs that may be considered nuisance or environmentally hazardous may cease to operate (Grant). The brunt of the jobs that are being created are likely only accessible to those educated, wealthier newcomers (Grant). But is this true of all cities?
It is also argued that some smaller cities which lack economic activity and are falling into disrepair welcome gentrification (Wynn and Deener). An increase in visibility results in an influx of visitors or residents and forms a more stable tax base (Wynn and Deener). For example, Sprague Electric, an electrical manufacturing plant, was transformed into MASS MoCA, a contemporary art museum (Wynn and Deener). This transformation created a destination spot of arts and culture rather than simply a post-industrial city with a shrinking community (Wynn and Deener). In 2015 alone, $34.4 million was injected into the local economy by the museum which drew tourists, lowered unemployment levels, and let opportunities arise for new businesses (Wynn and Deener).
While previously it was argued that gentrification pushes out poorer residents, the opposite has also been found to be true. In a study by Lance Freeman and Frank Barconi, it was found that poorer residents were actually less likely to move out of neighborhoods that were being gentrified rather than non-gentrifying neighborhoods (Wynn and Deener). This is attributed to the increase in safety as well as the improvement of services and neighborhoods (Wynn and Deener). They concluded that “a neighborhood could go from 30% poverty population to 12% in as few as 10 years without any displacement whatsoever.” (Florida) In later studies, their new found information and conclusions continued to reinforce the first. The second study found that the probability of a household being displaced was only 1.3% in a gentrifying neighborhood, and the third found that rent inflation in a neighborhood actually resulted in a decline of the probability of displacement -- households were 15% less likely to move out of a gentrifying neighborhood rather than a non-gentrifying one (Florida). It is interesting to note that every article that makes this argument cites these same studies and no others. This is not to discredit these studies, but rather to mention that there doesn’t seem to be other studies available or considered valuable enough to reinforce this argument that gentrification does not negatively affect or even positively affects poor neighborhoods.
There are many other studies that support the opposite conclusion. A study from 1982 found that between the years of 1970 and 1977, 1% of Americans, 5% of families, and 8.5% of urban families were displaced (Florida). A similar study from 1983 focused instead on five cities: Boston, Cincinnati, Richmond, Seattle, and Denver; the findings were that 23% of residents in urban neighborhoods were displaced (Florida). A more recent study by Jacob Vigdor in 2001 found an increase in housing turnover in neighborhoods that were being gentrified (Florida). Despite this affecting a small percentage of Americans with less than ten percent of all neighborhoods in three quarters of America’s 55 largest cities experiencing gentrification from 2000-2007 (Florida), it is ultimately the poor who fall into this ten percent and after taking that into consideration, this percentage doesn’t seem so small. As a result of these gentrified neighborhoods, a 2014 study discovered that across 51 metro areas for every gentrified neighborhood, 12 formerly stable neighborhoods fall into concentrated disadvantage and 10 other neighborhoods remain poor (Florida).
Gentrification also has an effect on crime. One source simply claims that crime rate “seems to fall” in gentrifying neighborhoods ("In praise of gentrification"). They do not consider the reasoning or repercussions of this, as if it affects everyone positively and equally. As the process of gentrification begins and low income neighborhoods receive an influx of affluent (primarily white) residents, standards and expectations of public behavior change (Fayyad). Activity becomes suspicious that was previously considered normal and the influx of newcomers are much more likely to involve law enforcement in these matters (Fayyad). As resources are increasingly being directed to these areas, police presence increases and as a result so do misdemeanor arrests (Fayyad). Although, these misdemeanor arrests can be seen as “unattractive” leading newcomers to believe an area is unsafe, in turn increasing enforcement of low level offenses in neighborhoods that have not yet started the gentrification process (Fayyad). This increased police enforcement creates concern of police misconduct and violence in low-income communities, primarily being communities of color (Fayyad). As enforcement increases and so do interactions, so does the likelihood of misconduct (Fayyad). Gentrification not only affects criminal justice on the streets, but also in the courtrooms (Fayyad). As the racial demographic of a city changes, so do juries -- as cities become whiter, juries become whiter (Fayyad), not being reflective of the demographic of the city’s long time residents. These jurors often do not relate to the accused of other races who have different life experiences, and if the accused claims evidence was planted or something of the likes, it will likely not resonate with these jurors the way it would with racially similar jurors who do share similar experiences (Fayyad).
Many low-income communities tend to be racially or ethnically concentrated. It comes to no surprise then that those who are adamantly against gentrification claim that it tears apart communities. Political conflict can result in these areas, made worse by racial, class, and cultural divides causing earlier residents in gentrified areas to feel excluded or ignored from their own communities (Grant). As the process of gentrification expands, demographics greatly shift. One source states that Atlanta’s 54% black population could soon fall to lower than half the population if this continues (Cheney-Rice). In the Central District of Seattle, the number of white residents was greater than the number of black residents for the first time in 30 years (Cheney-Rice). However, this seems to only be the case in areas that aren’t “too black”. It was found by a Harvard Study of Chicago that gentrification either slows or stops if the population of the neighborhood is 40% black, whereas it continues if the population is over 35% white (Florida). Gene Demby of NPR came to a similar conclusion (citing the same study), reporting that Chicago’s black population directly correlated with the speed at which it gentrifies. This does not indicate that it is purely racial -- these are also disadvantaged neighborhoods. Black residents who were well educated actually benefited greatly, with one third of the increase in income between 1990 and 2000 arising from this demographic (Florida).
In conclusion, there are many sides to the debate and there is no one right answer. Is gentrification beneficial? To those most vulnerable in our society, the poor and especially poor communities of color, it is very likely that gentrification will show them no benefits. It will likely result in eviction, the tearing apart of communities, and increased police enforcement leading to misdemeanor arrests -- continuing a vicious cycle of systematic oppression. Some may gain jobs in service sectors or be able to remain in their houses, but it is less likely that they will receive any of the benefits of a more stable economy. Earlier resident property owners and educated black households will receive greater financial gain and therefore status and comfort. The middle class and affluent, as always, will come out on top reaping all the benefits of a booming economy and job opportunities, as well as cheap housing. So, while gentrification benefits some, it creates a greater disadvantage for those who were disadvantaged to begin with. In order to remedy this, policies such as rent control, mixed income housing, and limited equity cooperatives should be intertwined with the process of gentrification (Wynn and Deener). Gentrification doesn’t have to have the negative effects or connotation it has today, the process simply needs to be improved.
Works Cited
Florida, Richard. “The Complex Connection Between Gentrification and Displacement.” CityLab, 8 Sept. 2015, www.citylab.com/equity/2015/09/the-complicated-link-between-gentrification-and-displacement/404161/.
Grant, Benjamin. “What Is Gentrification?” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 17 Jan. 2003, www.pbs.org/pov/flagwars/what-is-gentrification/.
Wynn, Jonathan, and Andrew Deener. “Gentrification? Bring It.” The Conversation, The Conversation, 10 Oct. 2017, theconversation.com/gentrification-bring-it-82107.
Cheney-Rice, Zak. “These 7 Cities Expose Exactly What Gentrification Is Doing to America.” Mic, Mic Network Inc., 22 Oct. 2014, mic.com/articles/102004/these-7-cities-expose-exactly-what-gentrification-is-doing-to-america#.Ubp65Rfv1.
Fayyad, Abdallah. “The Criminalization of Gentrifying Neighborhoods.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 4 Jan. 2018, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/the-criminalization-of-gentrifying-neighborhoods/548837/.
“In Praise of Gentrification.” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, 21 June 2018, www.economist.com/united-states/2018/06/21/in-praise-of-gentrification.