Hey all, I'm a student in Philadelphia who's interested in the subject of gentrification. It's a continually growing issue here in West Philly, especially with student-targeted apartment buildings popping up further and further west of University City.
Gentrification is a tough subject - and currently people are conflicted as to whether or not it's a good or bad thing. On the one hand, you need rent/values high enough to justify development, on the other, there are issues with affordability which drives out the mid-end of the market. There was an op/ed in the Boston Globe today about how the city of Boston might be able to create more mid-range housing.
you might be interested in checking out this blog:
This is a complex problem, what is most distressing for folks regarding gentrification is the displacement of people and businesses that originally made up a given neighborhood.
However there are lots of exceptions to what people might be willing to accept as a bad trade off for the changes brought on by gentrification, some folks will like the new services and retail opportunities, some people will also like the new job opportunities but if those services and opportunities displace existing small shops and other businesses then that may be a serious problem.
If people who are displaced from a neighborhood due to high rent are indeed involved in criminal activities then that is a good thing, but often the people who can most afford the new higher rents are drug dealers and other criminal extortionist
So how to resist the negative effects
devise a plan to keep existing businesses in the neighborhood
find a way to diversify the rental and housing price ranges so people don't have to move out, if a building can go up with a wide range of rents based on size and finished that could help too.
A place to start is to unpack the term. "Gentrification" is often used as a catch-all, like "blight" or "sprawl," to mean a number of different things.
For example: are you opposed to revitalizing old buildings and neighborhoods, encouraging new investment in both development and infrastructure? Most people aren't opposed to this, only the shift in occupancy and demographics that often comes with these improvements. They're related, but not the same thing.
devise a plan to keep existing businesses in the neighborhood
find a way to diversify the rental and housing price ranges so people don't have to move out, if a building can go up with a wide range of rents based on size and finished that could help too.
Existing businesses can't afford increased rents. Private development isn't interested in a wide range of rents, only the highest. The economic model is always up, never down, and thus the lower economic classes are sacrificed for profit.
Municipal governments prefer increased property taxes and revenue over affordability. Until the basic economic model is changed (a multitude of federal, state and local tax benefits for developers as well as the re-creation of a real middle class) the only thing that is going to happen is more of the same.
There have been recent studies showing that displacement is slowing.... while 5-6 mom & pops may close a Whole Foods may take there place and hold or increase jobs at higher more stable wages enabling more to stay. It has to be done this way because the cost of rehabbing this kind of building type requires high rents.... municipalities simply need to work in concert with the developers to offset any displacement with new low/moderate housing. Not to allow "gentrification" leads to stagnation.
Two pieces of required reading before this conversation devolves into an uneducated whinefest full of cliches that just so happen to benefit local politicians.
I was in a Community Board meeting for a Brooklyn neighborhood a few months back, and I heard a concilman's aide, speaking in Spanish to the crowd, stating that the councilman would not back the rezoning of a manufacturing zone to residential because it would tilt the population demographics towards a whiter crowd, with less Hispanics (explicitly stated) and he'd lose the next election. This, while Brooklyn remains largely unaffordable to anyone hoping to move here from anywhere other than NYC.
Resisting gentrification in certain places is akin to consenting to being manipulated by politicians and the media.
Resisting Gentrification
Hey all, I'm a student in Philadelphia who's interested in the subject of gentrification. It's a continually growing issue here in West Philly, especially with student-targeted apartment buildings popping up further and further west of University City.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/01/29/375415911/university-re-imagines-town-and-gown-relationship-in-philadelphia?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150129
How do we slow gentrification? What is the architect's role in fighting it?
Gentrification is a tough subject - and currently people are conflicted as to whether or not it's a good or bad thing. On the one hand, you need rent/values high enough to justify development, on the other, there are issues with affordability which drives out the mid-end of the market. There was an op/ed in the Boston Globe today about how the city of Boston might be able to create more mid-range housing.
you might be interested in checking out this blog:
http://cornersideyard.blogspot.com by pete saunders
There's a lot more out there if you keep digging. good luck.
This is a complex problem, what is most distressing for folks regarding gentrification is the displacement of people and businesses that originally made up a given neighborhood.
However there are lots of exceptions to what people might be willing to accept as a bad trade off for the changes brought on by gentrification, some folks will like the new services and retail opportunities, some people will also like the new job opportunities but if those services and opportunities displace existing small shops and other businesses then that may be a serious problem.
If people who are displaced from a neighborhood due to high rent are indeed involved in criminal activities then that is a good thing, but often the people who can most afford the new higher rents are drug dealers and other criminal extortionist
So how to resist the negative effects
devise a plan to keep existing businesses in the neighborhood
find a way to diversify the rental and housing price ranges so people don't have to move out, if a building can go up with a wide range of rents based on size and finished that could help too.
Over and OUT
Peter N
A place to start is to unpack the term. "Gentrification" is often used as a catch-all, like "blight" or "sprawl," to mean a number of different things.
For example: are you opposed to revitalizing old buildings and neighborhoods, encouraging new investment in both development and infrastructure? Most people aren't opposed to this, only the shift in occupancy and demographics that often comes with these improvements. They're related, but not the same thing.
So, be more specific.
So how to resist the negative effects
devise a plan to keep existing businesses in the neighborhood
find a way to diversify the rental and housing price ranges so people don't have to move out, if a building can go up with a wide range of rents based on size and finished that could help too.
Existing businesses can't afford increased rents. Private development isn't interested in a wide range of rents, only the highest. The economic model is always up, never down, and thus the lower economic classes are sacrificed for profit.
Municipal governments prefer increased property taxes and revenue over affordability. Until the basic economic model is changed (a multitude of federal, state and local tax benefits for developers as well as the re-creation of a real middle class) the only thing that is going to happen is more of the same.
There have been recent studies showing that displacement is slowing.... while 5-6 mom & pops may close a Whole Foods may take there place and hold or increase jobs at higher more stable wages enabling more to stay. It has to be done this way because the cost of rehabbing this kind of building type requires high rents.... municipalities simply need to work in concert with the developers to offset any displacement with new low/moderate housing. Not to allow "gentrification" leads to stagnation.
Two pieces of required reading before this conversation devolves into an uneducated whinefest full of cliches that just so happen to benefit local politicians.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_gentrification_myth_it_s_rare_and_not_as_bad_for_the_poor_as_people.html
http://nymag.com/news/features/gentrification-2014-2/
I was in a Community Board meeting for a Brooklyn neighborhood a few months back, and I heard a concilman's aide, speaking in Spanish to the crowd, stating that the councilman would not back the rezoning of a manufacturing zone to residential because it would tilt the population demographics towards a whiter crowd, with less Hispanics (explicitly stated) and he'd lose the next election. This, while Brooklyn remains largely unaffordable to anyone hoping to move here from anywhere other than NYC.
Resisting gentrification in certain places is akin to consenting to being manipulated by politicians and the media.
^ Meanwhile the councilman will the next election if he doesn't back the zoning changes for corporate developers funding his campaign.
As I said before, it's all economics.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.