I've thought about this quite a lot lately and I notice within a cities' impoverished neighborhoods, there is a will for planners in the US to solve it with the additions of "affordable housing" which typically ends up being either badly maintain housing projects or the beginnings of gentrification, which normally push the people that can afford to live there out of their own neighborhoods. So, what is good gentrification from the perspective of the people living in poverty? Is there even such a thing or would this only existing in the ideal world?
This is all brought on by a discussion I had with my boss recently, about redeveloping a neighborhood stricken with crime and poverty. Currently there are 2 separate housing projects located in the area, we are planning to demolish some abandoned motels and develop mixed use mid-rises along what we want to become a commercial corridor. These will be condominiums considered to be a scale up from what is considered to be affordable housing according to HUD standards 217,000 and up, but the thing that strikes me is that the money we are planning to help subsidize the project is envisioned for the creation of businesses like outback steakhouses, borders, and starbucks.
I suppose if it were an ideal world, we would create business programs where local entrepreneurs would re-circulate money and reinvigerate the local economy instead of shooting the money out of the country by going to walmarts.
This is an excellent question and topic for discussion.
I am the first to admit that I have a natural attraction to recently gentrified areas - like Living in Gin's neighborhood which is a fantastic place to be now, but I understand it was not always so rosy.
What happens when Neighborhood A gets gentrified? Where do those people who cannot afford it anymore go? Does Neighborhood B - once a nicer place to be - suddenly fall into disrepear? Is it a one-for-one trade, or can we idealistically hope to abolish all crime-ridden parts of the city?
well, i think i remember reading in a new urbanism book a few years ago that their principle is to divide and conquer... you gentrify the entire city and include low income units here and there throughout the entire city, so that the impovershed people are spread evenly, not centered anywhere. and by getting mixed in the same neighborhoods as the wealthier people, their culture of crime, destitution, and hopelessness gets erased and they begin to see the wealthy, successful people as role models, and they will strive to emulate that, get clean, get jobs, and poverty will be eliminated.
...............but uhhhh, mr. duany, i don't think it's that simple, and i think a lot of 'impovershed' people would be kinda upset if you tried to dissolve their entire communities. since they got a culture.
This is a great topic...although I am careful not to step on the toes of urban planners
I believe there isn't such a thing as good/bad gentrification. Gentrification generally speaks of the financial value of any one place and we know the factors that can affect this upward or downward, say for instance crime, parking, proximatey, etc. Sometimes it is done by external sources (people outside of the community) who inject money for a return of their investments typically buying out the existing infrastructure to demolish, renovate or whatever. The other source, rarely spoken about is gentrification from within - communities taking control of their situation through subsidies, clean up programmes etc.
Neither of these are fail safe options, but its been shown that when you are able to maintain the character of the location by the retention of the residents those areas tend to be more successful beyond the shear economy of it. And "architectural" interventions taking cues from the latter will likely be a catalyst
Whilst in grad school we did a case study of two such locations in DC, less than a 1/2 mile apart and it amazing the difference. And we've seen similar things happen in Columbia, Port of Spain, Miami.
What depresses me is that little is done in the documentation of the reverse effects...the demise of communities - the results are using broad brush (for instant the movie the architect) instead of truly finding the root of it all
well, as highly-educated, upper-crust white people (which architects tend to be), we see the gentrification as a positive spreading or extension of our own community and our own culture and don't think about it in terms of demise of another culture because we are not really a part of that other culture that is getting displaced. there's multiple societies living in the same city and we don't feel like a part of the other, impovershed one, besides thinking, oh no, i better not do anything to attract attention while driving through here, i wanna make back it to my side of town safely
ok fine that was a little exaggerated, but i think that's how lots of people feel, especially in cities where you have wealthy communities and impovershed, crime-ridden communities sitting precariously adjacent
This brings up another good point, when communities empower themselves economically and socially by means of redevelopment, the communities themselves tend to obtain the mentality of "we want our neighborhood to keep its tradition and residential feel". So, how can we as designers and architects encourage existing communities torn between the need for redevelopment without wanting the character of their neighborhood to diminish into what they call "box trailer modernism or contemporary architecture". I think this is especially difficult in the united states, because there isn't such a historical base for the architecture as of other continents, therefore there is a subconscious need to keep and preserve everything, which could sometimes hinder redevelopment for the better.
bad gentrification aka urban renewal brings out the bulldozers and displaces people who wouldn't have to move otherwise.
bad gentrification aka homaganization of world: starbucks, bruegers bagels, barnes and nobles, olive garden, pottery barn, ann taylor loft, mega churches and whole foods don't make an authentic place that reflects local culture or values. keep the mom and pops in business.
good gentrification aka infill development is additive to an existing community and doesn't force anybody from their houses (unless they choose to take the profit from rising prices). the difficult part is when assesments and taxes rise above what the existing residents can afford to pay - this often 'forces' people out of their homes in the longer run.
good gentrification and bad gentrification...i've been thinking about the same thing myself recently, or in slightly different terms:
is gentrification the only way an area can improve?
this was after seeing something on buzzfeed.com about the increasing trend of "de-gentrification", which seemed to be about different things to different people, from resisting hipster assimilation, to longing for organic boutique grocers or nearest "fresh and wild" equivalents. although i'm not sure how either article relates to my subsequent question.
the first seems to be more like anti-gentrification, as in a positive reaction against one type of homogenisation and in the second de-gentrification describes a process of decline from a homogenisation to which it still aspires (probably because residents don't think of it as necessarily homogeneous).
I'd have thought that the divide is maintained by the fact that some people can only afford to rent their homes whilst others own them (or at least can borrow so as to buy them). When areas become popular, rents go up unless some are artificially controlled by the state on a temporary basis. However in the long term, those who own their property (or who can afford to do so even if they opt not to) either benefit from their increased value or can alternatively afford to keep up with increasing rent.
As usual with economics, the general gist is the poor tend to get poorer and the rich richer. The 'free market' is only free to those who can afford to buy into it.
I think what might solve this problem is a change in attitude about what we aspire to. Or is this against humankind's essentially venal nature? Personally, I think our fundamental asset isn't Darwinian dominance but self-awareness. It's therefore somewhat depressing that our history evidences so little of this, unless we stop dead at the awareness of our venality and can think of no nobler thing.
treekiller if what you are saying is true (perhaps heated) it would mean that the US does not have any suburban culture...if its manufactured as you indicate. I believe what you say is true that local (m&p) stores need to be given an opportunity to compete and keep the essence of the communities
did i say 'suburbs don't have culture'? but it's very funny that you read my mind on the subject. the culture of suburbs is all about perceived safety and privacy- so variety and creativity are sacrificed in the name of the holy lawn, patio and SUV.
The best part of suburban culture in my book is the bbq/grill- it's too damn hard to haul a sack of kingford up the fire escape for the hibachi. I'd alway envied those propaine stainless steel monsters out in the 'burbs, when I didn't have any personal outdoor space.
maybe globalization and banality needs it's own thread.
how can you read richard ford or anne sexton, see movies like 'american beauty', 'ice storm', or anything by john hughes, and say that suburbs don't have culture? i can't say that i particularly appreciate all of suburban culture, but there are aspects of backyard derby parties, clean garage floors, and the atrophy of the living room (which was only for show anyway) to which i still respond. i hate watching new subdivisions grow in the horse pastures, but i have fond memories of jumping my bike off of plywood ramps at the end of the sidewalk where the new houses hadn't yet sprouted.
suburban culture is no more or less banal than a lot of the other cultures which we are embracing in the name of diversity. (...and the attempt to make these others more interesting has had a tendency to make caricatures of them.)
urban culture, on the other hand, is becoming less and less viable as suburban taste affects what is available in the city. my tried-and-true and decades-old approach of going to the stone source, the tile source, or the bargain supply on market street for a little extra attention and the chance to look at things not found elsewhere is slowly going away as the same products become available everywhere and the customer service gets younger and less knowledgeable. (this rant is just because this is on my mind. for our renovation i was hoping to find things other than the rusty slate or faux-stone porcelain you can see at lowe's/home depot, but they seem to have taken over the market.)
same is true with food, though. even the independent restaurants' menus are starting to look alike: domesticated versions of once-ethnic foods. what you see as the banality of the suburbs is becoming the banality of american life, including urban life. i blame walmart, starbucks, home depot, and olive garden but you can pick your own favorite "targets" (< heh).
Gentrification may be a symptom of an economic system. Economic "growth" depends on the refreshing of products (including housing, community and culture) - in other words: out with the old, in with the new.
I think a major piece of this relates to Banks and Lenders depending on the existance of rough, low-value neighborhoods to keep alive the threat of shifting property values. See: Block-Busting.
This also makes me think about very old class issues - that people desire status and stratification, displayed through the symbols of their neighborhoods. The poor and working class end up moving around the checker board, keeping the system fresh - i.e. - a rough neighborhood with low property values becomes a target for development. Property values rise. The inhabitants are forced to move to a new area and wait for it to become the new target. Pretty bleak.
1950: Suburban ideal... Suburbs = development target
1990: City revitalization... City Centers = development target
I think you might be talking about 2 different things here, it has nothing to do with refreshing of the product. It seems that from a developers perspective its all about making money, and from the perspective of the people who live there is about affordability. So, I honestly believe that it isn't hte demand that drives supply, but the other way around and that is why the home owners has such little power when it comes to their neighborhoods.
The only color that the economic machine sees is green, and basically the way to make the MOST money is to displace people and move other folks which are willing to pay more for housing. Sad but I definantly see it as true. My question is, why do we not impliment more efficient and well suited infill developments in neighborhoods that need them, instead of wiping the whole slate clean and starting over again.
The problem that we face in the US is that when a neighborhood realizes that its not working out, and more efficient infill development is proposed, the neighborhood typically has a problem with the architecture. Too modern majority of the time. So, there is a conflict here between the "tradition" of the neighborhood even though its dying, and a resistance to new development which is encouraging change.
In my opinion the only way for neigborhoods to continually strive is to allow for change to occur, and sometimes these changes maybe drastic.
this is definitely one of those discussions that i've been thinking about for a while. here in nyc, gentrification has become such a ridiculously fast process that areas can easily go from affordable to affluent in a matter of months.
so what is gentrification period? that's the central question...it's a mutable concept rooted in NIMBYist rhetoric that has been accepted as a larger "emergent" phenomenon. so it is generally used as a derogatory term...which makes one question if good gentrification is even possible. what is better to ask is how does one rebrand change in the urban environment in a post-Robert Moses planning climate. does all change need to be for the worse? is it not the nature of any system, machine, construct to need maintenance, updates, change?
therefore maybe that is the central question is change necessarily in opposition to the existing culture of the city, one of absolute socio-economic transformation toward the homogenous environment. i think someone brought up an interesting point about rent related to gentrification, which is (i believe) an incredibly big deal related to current architectural, urban planning, and environmental problems. why is rent not a tax deductible investment? why do we continue to focus so singularly on the development of the single family house on the suburban lot as the main focus of tax incentives in this country...if we as a profession were to begin questioning these types of existing bureaucratic decisions we might begin to transform our position in society, and truly begin to shape our environments in a meaningful and intelligent manner, rather than maintain our status-quo as stylists of buildings.
steven, what a description of suburban culture...best i've heard in a while. funny, i still respond to it too...one of my favorite memories as a kid was playing outside with my friends and watching everyone's front windows glowing blue as the sun sets. but that's beside the point...
gentrification has been happening for a long time in many cities. the telegraph article linked above was telling. chelsea in NY was just like chelsea in london...a long time ago, back before we were born, both chelseas were kinda questionable. but no mas.
most people who now clamor for multi-million-dollar condos and houses in chicago's lincoln park would probably laugh at the notion that it was once a gangland warzone where students at depaul had to dodge bullets going to class...but it was, as recently as the 60s.
it's a vicious cycle driven mostly by property taxes. i really feel great for those families in previously-undesirable areas who profit like mad from selling their homes for the land value alone. but i really feel bad for those who would just like to stay put...but who are driven out because some arbitrary appraisal forces their taxes through the roof.
eliminating property taxes, or weaning ourselves off of them, is the one single best thing we as a society can do to ensure vibrant, truly mixed neighborhoods in race, class, and income.
Would eliminating property taxes address the effects of market forces and the fashion cycles for certain city districts?
This is a really interesting topic, and one that I've thought about too (even did a competition project about it). I find most gentrification is the kind that will tend to drive out lower-income residents sooner or later. Frankly though, I don't know how to "fight" bad gentrification. It's in the nature of cities to change; neighbourhoods "decline" or are "rediscovered" and people and groups move around. A static city isn't much of a city at all, but transformation also leads to tensions - and tensions are perhaps unavoidable, especially when anything, no matter how good it looks at first, becomes widespread. Gentrification is such a sign of the times, but also a part of much older cycles that I don't know how to get away from.
In the interests of urban variety, I think that while tax policies can often have a negative effect, so do planning/legal policies, as well as financial institutions that probably strongly favour a few models of private development, corporate franchises and single-family home ownership. The physical infrastructures of gentrifying neighbourhoods (real streets, neighbourhood parks, etc.) may offer the promise of variety lacking in the suburbs, but if the invisible, legal and financial infrastructures remain limiting and unimaginative, then we can still expect a lot of homogenization.
there is such a thing as mandatory gentrification, where due to rapid increases in tax burdens, long-time/lower-income residents of newly popular areas indeed HAVE to move...because even if they've owned their homes for years or even generations, they can't afford taxes which (at least in high-property-tax areas such as hometown austin TX) can approach rent levels. so in that sense, eliminating property taxes might have an effect on keeping long-standing residents from leaving.
what it wouldn't do is lower the barriers to entry for new residents, so in that sense, it wouldn't hinder voluntary gentrification.
but cities really are fluid, everchanging beings where over the long span of time, places within places travel up and down the desirability scale.
i would say that there really isn't anything that government could -- or should -- do about voluntary gentrification, except in a few areas where one can justifiably claim market failure.
i think we as a society could probably agree that skilled personnel criticially essential to a city's survival and function (i would limit that list to police, firefighters, paramedics, and schoolteachers) should be able to live in the communities they serve, and that as a society we should be able to make that happen. i'm thinking of cities like new york where it's hard to live when one is, for instance, a schoolteacher new in town. or like san jose (if you can call the insane property values in the silicon valley an effect of gentrification), where i read that cops and teachers were living in homeless shelters.
but does JUST having a low income, or does JUST having a long-term (rental) presence in an area, or does JUST being a contributor to the culture or vibrancy of an area (think artists or musicians etc) justify large-scale efforts to counteract gentrification?
bad gentrification is 1960's urban renewal....were the land was laid barren and new was built and now it is time again to let it come tumbling down. Save the good stuff....take down the bad stuff and design infill with superior design! Go Archinects...!
ochona - what about the instances where the gov't promotes forcing low income people to leave, not in the form of property taxes but in the form of eminent domain activity? for example, the ratner/gehry atlantic yards in brooklyn.
there is never any justification for the government to utilize eminent domain in the service of gentrification, whether it be "urban renewal" or a rank and explicit giveaway to private interests, such as the atlantic yards project. it's hard enough to justify toll roads and other public projects that are questionably "in the public interest" -- for the government to force private property owners off their land so that someone else can come in and make money...that's indefensible.
the argument that (increased) tax revenue is sufficient justification for eminent domain is ludicrous and so far outside the intention of the principle that i can't believe it ever occurs. yet it does: when i was in high school, a nearby suburb forced almost 100 people out of their homes so that their subdivision could be bulldozed and turned into a big-box shopping center and an extension for a nearby mall.
I'm not very informed on the matter of Atlantic Yards, but from what I understand it seems to me that those residences should make a big deal out of it to their local officials or possibly the press. I firmly believe that public officials work for us, and if we can organize ourselves in a sufficient matter and put their public positions in jeopardy, then that is enough incentive for them to change their minds about certain positions officials take. So, for example even in my small town when a development is not very well desired by a neighborhood, they collect the neighborhood organization, or even if you don't have an official organization or associate you can always clamour enough phone calls to your local council member or representative. THEY NEED YOUR VOTES, THEY WILL DO WHAT IT TAKES TO GET RE-ELECTED. I can't imagine that private projects would overshadow the concerns and rights of citizens.
Anyway, this is getting off the topic a little bit. Just thought I'd rant.
Huanmic,
here in nyc, the people are organized to oppose Ratner's development, but the backing for it is really being pushed from above at the city and state level at which point money talks much louder. this might not be the case everywhere, but in the new urban economy we are finding a growing disparity between those with money and those without. again going back to the tax argument (which i'm fully sure that i support ochona's proposal to eliminate taxes...it sounds very, well, texas) taxes are not just a means of getting financial reimbursement on income, but are also a huge part of being heard in the US currently....because the tax money of an area is directly linked to that particular official's pool of potential finances, and in nyc the property taxes are not always paid by someone who lives within that neighborhood (especially with as many property management agencies there are that control properties) i don't know if there's a study of this, but i would like to see something related to rental communities vs. ownership communities and the political voice that those communities have. i'm sure rental communities would provide a very dismal set of statistics in terms of political voice.
so there it is, in order to transform architecture and urbanism, i think we need to first transform the current methodology of taxes in this country
I think there are really two sides to this. Housing prices, and the design of public spaces.
These two things dictate whether an urban space can be owned by a particular individual. Whether they can afford to actually live there, but also, whether they can identify with the place.
It's the second thing which is missed much of the time. How do people from different classes and cultural makeups take ownership of that shared space in the city, how does it become a true public shared space instead of a space that dictates a "yuppy territory" that displaces those who are not.
Urban languages mark territories. How is a place made open to many?
If I may swing the discussion another direction at this juncture.
'Gentrification'.
This word seems all about class: attracting people with more money into any given area 'improves' it because people with money have better education too. They tend to fight with language rather than fists and their drug / alcohol addictions (such as they are) can be fed from loans against their assets rather than by nicking the next door neighbour's VCR. The gentry practice a softer, more insulated form of the same human vices and virtues as our poorer brethren. Put this another way, the poor people gentrification displaces practice a more visceral form of life. Their art is grafitti, which the gentry replace with window-boxes. I'm being rhetorical, of course.
What makes gentrification better? Who says? As architects, is there something more visually appealing about 'well-ordered' environments? Sure, we design stuff and perhaps the 'architecture without architects' of non-gentrified areas is somehow offensive to our sense of order. Personally, I think this is bullshit but there must be something in this; some deep-rooted Western sense of progress which aspires to gentrification. Which would be very well if it were a truly fair game but, until such times as it genuinely is, might it not be better to celebrate what we have and create improvement routes for people which are appropriate to their own circumstances? I suppose this could be construed as patronising. It is.
Hmm... thinking of this another way, in which sense are architects involved in the 'gentrification' of urban neighbourhoods? Who are our clients in this regard? Are these clients the right ones?
The issue is displacement. Gentrification is not about creating order... Its about driving out classes that don't have as much power so that it can all appear *pretty*... Just marking territory. What is orderly for one person or class is much more threatening to another person or class... If you took a person out of skid row and placed them in the middle of a gentrified neighbourhood of yuppies that person might be as guarded as you are in their neighborhood.
Good urbanism can be: Dirty. Edgy. Lively. Interactive. Heterogenous...
The problem I think is the me vs. them mentality... The culture of fear and individualism that is encouraged in our society, and that continues to propogate more fear and individualism...
We could instead subsidize and build, design better low income homes, provide structures for overcoming poverty and drug addiction, etc. instead of running it out of "general viewing space" to some other corner who knows where...
The problem is lack of community. People don't look out for one another, they only look out for number one. Not all countries and places are like that, not all american cities even, so there are alternative ideas about urban living...
solidred-
The other day I was a spectator to a group of 20 or 30 tenents in an ethnic neighborhood protesting their landlords rent hikes-
The landlord was in his late 30's , corporate blackberry yaking , blond assitant toteing , suit-wearing, angry and swearing at these older chinese tenents - while trying to pay off a policeman.
they will probably wind up getting priced out- the building which is not great will be rennovated or replaced - The thought of working for that bastard i saw is wretched- I guess that is who are clients are-
While it is sad to see market forces drive people out of neighborhoods that they have inhabited for years, it was also disasterous to see urban neighborhoods decline into poverty and despair decades ago. The 20th century saw major decline in central cities as suburbs became solidly middle and upper class. Many cities are still on the brink of economic ruin because of the lack of a middle and upper class tax base. Look at Detroit, where the central city is almost 90% black and largely poor while the suburbs are nearly 90% white and well off. The future of Detroit is perhaps more uncertain than any other American city, and the city government can scarcely afford to provide basic city services.
The future of American cities depends on SOME sort of gentrification. The old dichotomy of rich suburbs and poor inner city cannot be sustained. Some displacement is inevitable, but necessary. However, the suburbs regretably continue to develop as economically segregated communities without rental housing or affordable homes. This leaves the poor with few options for housing--and I believe that suburbs should begin to shoulder some of the burden of low-income housing as the cities gain more monied residents. Unfortunately, this is a near political impossibility, since suburban municipalities have codified minimum home and lot sizes while limiting rental housing.
Some suburbs are no in danger of becoming ghettos themselves. For instance, some Chicago suburbs south and west of the city are becoming lower class ghettos like parts of the inner city. Several suburbs are filling with the black and poor as white middle class residents flee--and these suburbs often lack the economic ability to serve these populations with the needed services.
Mixed income development nees to be utilized throughout entire metropolitain regions, not just in the central cities.
I'm interested to know how squatter communities play into this. In countries which squatter communities are plentiful, how would this similar situation effect well established favelas for instance?
Lots of interesting comments here! This is definately a complicated issue - the considerations involved including: forced displacement, urban planning approaches, economic systems, development methods, cultural identities, class/race/income issues, ethical positions, service industry issues, even human nature/ philosophical considerations.
It would be valuable to study existing and historic mixed income / mixed class neighborhoods to see how they work.
I'm thinking about Jamaica Plain, MA - where there is a very diverse population, house to house - race, class, etc. vary... There is some form of 'group identity' that is other than the typical clusters of race, class, income. Some intrensic value is seen to maintaining the diversity of the neighborhood, and neighborhood groups are very active regarding all development and the cultivation of their location-specific cultural identity. (local festivals, open studios, etc.) - it makes me think that there is some key to all of this mixed income / etc. development that is centered around finding an alternate group identity that allows for variation.
What other neighborhoods exist like this?
Jan 16, 07 9:37 am ·
·
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.
The Difference between Good gentrification and bad gentrification
I've thought about this quite a lot lately and I notice within a cities' impoverished neighborhoods, there is a will for planners in the US to solve it with the additions of "affordable housing" which typically ends up being either badly maintain housing projects or the beginnings of gentrification, which normally push the people that can afford to live there out of their own neighborhoods. So, what is good gentrification from the perspective of the people living in poverty? Is there even such a thing or would this only existing in the ideal world?
This is all brought on by a discussion I had with my boss recently, about redeveloping a neighborhood stricken with crime and poverty. Currently there are 2 separate housing projects located in the area, we are planning to demolish some abandoned motels and develop mixed use mid-rises along what we want to become a commercial corridor. These will be condominiums considered to be a scale up from what is considered to be affordable housing according to HUD standards 217,000 and up, but the thing that strikes me is that the money we are planning to help subsidize the project is envisioned for the creation of businesses like outback steakhouses, borders, and starbucks.
I suppose if it were an ideal world, we would create business programs where local entrepreneurs would re-circulate money and reinvigerate the local economy instead of shooting the money out of the country by going to walmarts.
This is an excellent question and topic for discussion.
I am the first to admit that I have a natural attraction to recently gentrified areas - like Living in Gin's neighborhood which is a fantastic place to be now, but I understand it was not always so rosy.
What happens when Neighborhood A gets gentrified? Where do those people who cannot afford it anymore go? Does Neighborhood B - once a nicer place to be - suddenly fall into disrepear? Is it a one-for-one trade, or can we idealistically hope to abolish all crime-ridden parts of the city?
well, i think i remember reading in a new urbanism book a few years ago that their principle is to divide and conquer... you gentrify the entire city and include low income units here and there throughout the entire city, so that the impovershed people are spread evenly, not centered anywhere. and by getting mixed in the same neighborhoods as the wealthier people, their culture of crime, destitution, and hopelessness gets erased and they begin to see the wealthy, successful people as role models, and they will strive to emulate that, get clean, get jobs, and poverty will be eliminated.
...............but uhhhh, mr. duany, i don't think it's that simple, and i think a lot of 'impovershed' people would be kinda upset if you tried to dissolve their entire communities. since they got a culture.
This is a great topic...although I am careful not to step on the toes of urban planners
I believe there isn't such a thing as good/bad gentrification. Gentrification generally speaks of the financial value of any one place and we know the factors that can affect this upward or downward, say for instance crime, parking, proximatey, etc. Sometimes it is done by external sources (people outside of the community) who inject money for a return of their investments typically buying out the existing infrastructure to demolish, renovate or whatever. The other source, rarely spoken about is gentrification from within - communities taking control of their situation through subsidies, clean up programmes etc.
Neither of these are fail safe options, but its been shown that when you are able to maintain the character of the location by the retention of the residents those areas tend to be more successful beyond the shear economy of it. And "architectural" interventions taking cues from the latter will likely be a catalyst
Whilst in grad school we did a case study of two such locations in DC, less than a 1/2 mile apart and it amazing the difference. And we've seen similar things happen in Columbia, Port of Spain, Miami.
What depresses me is that little is done in the documentation of the reverse effects...the demise of communities - the results are using broad brush (for instant the movie the architect) instead of truly finding the root of it all
well, as highly-educated, upper-crust white people (which architects tend to be), we see the gentrification as a positive spreading or extension of our own community and our own culture and don't think about it in terms of demise of another culture because we are not really a part of that other culture that is getting displaced. there's multiple societies living in the same city and we don't feel like a part of the other, impovershed one, besides thinking, oh no, i better not do anything to attract attention while driving through here, i wanna make back it to my side of town safely
ok fine that was a little exaggerated, but i think that's how lots of people feel, especially in cities where you have wealthy communities and impovershed, crime-ridden communities sitting precariously adjacent
lol funny robust but point taken
btw I'm only 30% of that comment
This brings up another good point, when communities empower themselves economically and socially by means of redevelopment, the communities themselves tend to obtain the mentality of "we want our neighborhood to keep its tradition and residential feel". So, how can we as designers and architects encourage existing communities torn between the need for redevelopment without wanting the character of their neighborhood to diminish into what they call "box trailer modernism or contemporary architecture". I think this is especially difficult in the united states, because there isn't such a historical base for the architecture as of other continents, therefore there is a subconscious need to keep and preserve everything, which could sometimes hinder redevelopment for the better.
bad gentrification aka urban renewal brings out the bulldozers and displaces people who wouldn't have to move otherwise.
bad gentrification aka homaganization of world: starbucks, bruegers bagels, barnes and nobles, olive garden, pottery barn, ann taylor loft, mega churches and whole foods don't make an authentic place that reflects local culture or values. keep the mom and pops in business.
good gentrification aka infill development is additive to an existing community and doesn't force anybody from their houses (unless they choose to take the profit from rising prices). the difficult part is when assesments and taxes rise above what the existing residents can afford to pay - this often 'forces' people out of their homes in the longer run.
good gentrification and bad gentrification...i've been thinking about the same thing myself recently, or in slightly different terms:
is gentrification the only way an area can improve?
this was after seeing something on buzzfeed.com about the increasing trend of "de-gentrification", which seemed to be about different things to different people, from resisting hipster assimilation, to longing for organic boutique grocers or nearest "fresh and wild" equivalents. although i'm not sure how either article relates to my subsequent question.
the first seems to be more like anti-gentrification, as in a positive reaction against one type of homogenisation and in the second de-gentrification describes a process of decline from a homogenisation to which it still aspires (probably because residents don't think of it as necessarily homogeneous).
I'd have thought that the divide is maintained by the fact that some people can only afford to rent their homes whilst others own them (or at least can borrow so as to buy them). When areas become popular, rents go up unless some are artificially controlled by the state on a temporary basis. However in the long term, those who own their property (or who can afford to do so even if they opt not to) either benefit from their increased value or can alternatively afford to keep up with increasing rent.
As usual with economics, the general gist is the poor tend to get poorer and the rich richer. The 'free market' is only free to those who can afford to buy into it.
I think what might solve this problem is a change in attitude about what we aspire to. Or is this against humankind's essentially venal nature? Personally, I think our fundamental asset isn't Darwinian dominance but self-awareness. It's therefore somewhat depressing that our history evidences so little of this, unless we stop dead at the awareness of our venality and can think of no nobler thing.
treekiller if what you are saying is true (perhaps heated) it would mean that the US does not have any suburban culture...if its manufactured as you indicate. I believe what you say is true that local (m&p) stores need to be given an opportunity to compete and keep the essence of the communities
did i say 'suburbs don't have culture'? but it's very funny that you read my mind on the subject. the culture of suburbs is all about perceived safety and privacy- so variety and creativity are sacrificed in the name of the holy lawn, patio and SUV.
The best part of suburban culture in my book is the bbq/grill- it's too damn hard to haul a sack of kingford up the fire escape for the hibachi. I'd alway envied those propaine stainless steel monsters out in the 'burbs, when I didn't have any personal outdoor space.
maybe globalization and banality needs it's own thread.
how can you read richard ford or anne sexton, see movies like 'american beauty', 'ice storm', or anything by john hughes, and say that suburbs don't have culture? i can't say that i particularly appreciate all of suburban culture, but there are aspects of backyard derby parties, clean garage floors, and the atrophy of the living room (which was only for show anyway) to which i still respond. i hate watching new subdivisions grow in the horse pastures, but i have fond memories of jumping my bike off of plywood ramps at the end of the sidewalk where the new houses hadn't yet sprouted.
suburban culture is no more or less banal than a lot of the other cultures which we are embracing in the name of diversity. (...and the attempt to make these others more interesting has had a tendency to make caricatures of them.)
urban culture, on the other hand, is becoming less and less viable as suburban taste affects what is available in the city. my tried-and-true and decades-old approach of going to the stone source, the tile source, or the bargain supply on market street for a little extra attention and the chance to look at things not found elsewhere is slowly going away as the same products become available everywhere and the customer service gets younger and less knowledgeable. (this rant is just because this is on my mind. for our renovation i was hoping to find things other than the rusty slate or faux-stone porcelain you can see at lowe's/home depot, but they seem to have taken over the market.)
same is true with food, though. even the independent restaurants' menus are starting to look alike: domesticated versions of once-ethnic foods. what you see as the banality of the suburbs is becoming the banality of american life, including urban life. i blame walmart, starbucks, home depot, and olive garden but you can pick your own favorite "targets" (< heh).
Gentrification may be a symptom of an economic system. Economic "growth" depends on the refreshing of products (including housing, community and culture) - in other words: out with the old, in with the new.
I think a major piece of this relates to Banks and Lenders depending on the existance of rough, low-value neighborhoods to keep alive the threat of shifting property values. See: Block-Busting.
This also makes me think about very old class issues - that people desire status and stratification, displayed through the symbols of their neighborhoods. The poor and working class end up moving around the checker board, keeping the system fresh - i.e. - a rough neighborhood with low property values becomes a target for development. Property values rise. The inhabitants are forced to move to a new area and wait for it to become the new target. Pretty bleak.
1950: Suburban ideal... Suburbs = development target
1990: City revitalization... City Centers = development target
shift slide move shift
I think you might be talking about 2 different things here, it has nothing to do with refreshing of the product. It seems that from a developers perspective its all about making money, and from the perspective of the people who live there is about affordability. So, I honestly believe that it isn't hte demand that drives supply, but the other way around and that is why the home owners has such little power when it comes to their neighborhoods.
The only color that the economic machine sees is green, and basically the way to make the MOST money is to displace people and move other folks which are willing to pay more for housing. Sad but I definantly see it as true. My question is, why do we not impliment more efficient and well suited infill developments in neighborhoods that need them, instead of wiping the whole slate clean and starting over again.
The problem that we face in the US is that when a neighborhood realizes that its not working out, and more efficient infill development is proposed, the neighborhood typically has a problem with the architecture. Too modern majority of the time. So, there is a conflict here between the "tradition" of the neighborhood even though its dying, and a resistance to new development which is encouraging change.
In my opinion the only way for neigborhoods to continually strive is to allow for change to occur, and sometimes these changes maybe drastic.
this is definitely one of those discussions that i've been thinking about for a while. here in nyc, gentrification has become such a ridiculously fast process that areas can easily go from affordable to affluent in a matter of months.
so what is gentrification period? that's the central question...it's a mutable concept rooted in NIMBYist rhetoric that has been accepted as a larger "emergent" phenomenon. so it is generally used as a derogatory term...which makes one question if good gentrification is even possible. what is better to ask is how does one rebrand change in the urban environment in a post-Robert Moses planning climate. does all change need to be for the worse? is it not the nature of any system, machine, construct to need maintenance, updates, change?
therefore maybe that is the central question is change necessarily in opposition to the existing culture of the city, one of absolute socio-economic transformation toward the homogenous environment. i think someone brought up an interesting point about rent related to gentrification, which is (i believe) an incredibly big deal related to current architectural, urban planning, and environmental problems. why is rent not a tax deductible investment? why do we continue to focus so singularly on the development of the single family house on the suburban lot as the main focus of tax incentives in this country...if we as a profession were to begin questioning these types of existing bureaucratic decisions we might begin to transform our position in society, and truly begin to shape our environments in a meaningful and intelligent manner, rather than maintain our status-quo as stylists of buildings.
steven, what a description of suburban culture...best i've heard in a while. funny, i still respond to it too...one of my favorite memories as a kid was playing outside with my friends and watching everyone's front windows glowing blue as the sun sets. but that's beside the point...
gentrification has been happening for a long time in many cities. the telegraph article linked above was telling. chelsea in NY was just like chelsea in london...a long time ago, back before we were born, both chelseas were kinda questionable. but no mas.
most people who now clamor for multi-million-dollar condos and houses in chicago's lincoln park would probably laugh at the notion that it was once a gangland warzone where students at depaul had to dodge bullets going to class...but it was, as recently as the 60s.
it's a vicious cycle driven mostly by property taxes. i really feel great for those families in previously-undesirable areas who profit like mad from selling their homes for the land value alone. but i really feel bad for those who would just like to stay put...but who are driven out because some arbitrary appraisal forces their taxes through the roof.
eliminating property taxes, or weaning ourselves off of them, is the one single best thing we as a society can do to ensure vibrant, truly mixed neighborhoods in race, class, and income.
Would eliminating property taxes address the effects of market forces and the fashion cycles for certain city districts?
This is a really interesting topic, and one that I've thought about too (even did a competition project about it). I find most gentrification is the kind that will tend to drive out lower-income residents sooner or later. Frankly though, I don't know how to "fight" bad gentrification. It's in the nature of cities to change; neighbourhoods "decline" or are "rediscovered" and people and groups move around. A static city isn't much of a city at all, but transformation also leads to tensions - and tensions are perhaps unavoidable, especially when anything, no matter how good it looks at first, becomes widespread. Gentrification is such a sign of the times, but also a part of much older cycles that I don't know how to get away from.
In the interests of urban variety, I think that while tax policies can often have a negative effect, so do planning/legal policies, as well as financial institutions that probably strongly favour a few models of private development, corporate franchises and single-family home ownership. The physical infrastructures of gentrifying neighbourhoods (real streets, neighbourhood parks, etc.) may offer the promise of variety lacking in the suburbs, but if the invisible, legal and financial infrastructures remain limiting and unimaginative, then we can still expect a lot of homogenization.
there is such a thing as mandatory gentrification, where due to rapid increases in tax burdens, long-time/lower-income residents of newly popular areas indeed HAVE to move...because even if they've owned their homes for years or even generations, they can't afford taxes which (at least in high-property-tax areas such as hometown austin TX) can approach rent levels. so in that sense, eliminating property taxes might have an effect on keeping long-standing residents from leaving.
what it wouldn't do is lower the barriers to entry for new residents, so in that sense, it wouldn't hinder voluntary gentrification.
but cities really are fluid, everchanging beings where over the long span of time, places within places travel up and down the desirability scale.
i would say that there really isn't anything that government could -- or should -- do about voluntary gentrification, except in a few areas where one can justifiably claim market failure.
i think we as a society could probably agree that skilled personnel criticially essential to a city's survival and function (i would limit that list to police, firefighters, paramedics, and schoolteachers) should be able to live in the communities they serve, and that as a society we should be able to make that happen. i'm thinking of cities like new york where it's hard to live when one is, for instance, a schoolteacher new in town. or like san jose (if you can call the insane property values in the silicon valley an effect of gentrification), where i read that cops and teachers were living in homeless shelters.
but does JUST having a low income, or does JUST having a long-term (rental) presence in an area, or does JUST being a contributor to the culture or vibrancy of an area (think artists or musicians etc) justify large-scale efforts to counteract gentrification?
bad gentrification is 1960's urban renewal....were the land was laid barren and new was built and now it is time again to let it come tumbling down. Save the good stuff....take down the bad stuff and design infill with superior design! Go Archinects...!
ochona - what about the instances where the gov't promotes forcing low income people to leave, not in the form of property taxes but in the form of eminent domain activity? for example, the ratner/gehry atlantic yards in brooklyn.
there is never any justification for the government to utilize eminent domain in the service of gentrification, whether it be "urban renewal" or a rank and explicit giveaway to private interests, such as the atlantic yards project. it's hard enough to justify toll roads and other public projects that are questionably "in the public interest" -- for the government to force private property owners off their land so that someone else can come in and make money...that's indefensible.
the argument that (increased) tax revenue is sufficient justification for eminent domain is ludicrous and so far outside the intention of the principle that i can't believe it ever occurs. yet it does: when i was in high school, a nearby suburb forced almost 100 people out of their homes so that their subdivision could be bulldozed and turned into a big-box shopping center and an extension for a nearby mall.
I'm not very informed on the matter of Atlantic Yards, but from what I understand it seems to me that those residences should make a big deal out of it to their local officials or possibly the press. I firmly believe that public officials work for us, and if we can organize ourselves in a sufficient matter and put their public positions in jeopardy, then that is enough incentive for them to change their minds about certain positions officials take. So, for example even in my small town when a development is not very well desired by a neighborhood, they collect the neighborhood organization, or even if you don't have an official organization or associate you can always clamour enough phone calls to your local council member or representative. THEY NEED YOUR VOTES, THEY WILL DO WHAT IT TAKES TO GET RE-ELECTED. I can't imagine that private projects would overshadow the concerns and rights of citizens.
Anyway, this is getting off the topic a little bit. Just thought I'd rant.
ochona every chicago neighborhood still has a gang presence. even the wealthy ones. http://www.chicagocrimecommission.org/
Huanmic,
here in nyc, the people are organized to oppose Ratner's development, but the backing for it is really being pushed from above at the city and state level at which point money talks much louder. this might not be the case everywhere, but in the new urban economy we are finding a growing disparity between those with money and those without. again going back to the tax argument (which i'm fully sure that i support ochona's proposal to eliminate taxes...it sounds very, well, texas) taxes are not just a means of getting financial reimbursement on income, but are also a huge part of being heard in the US currently....because the tax money of an area is directly linked to that particular official's pool of potential finances, and in nyc the property taxes are not always paid by someone who lives within that neighborhood (especially with as many property management agencies there are that control properties) i don't know if there's a study of this, but i would like to see something related to rental communities vs. ownership communities and the political voice that those communities have. i'm sure rental communities would provide a very dismal set of statistics in terms of political voice.
so there it is, in order to transform architecture and urbanism, i think we need to first transform the current methodology of taxes in this country
I think there are really two sides to this. Housing prices, and the design of public spaces.
These two things dictate whether an urban space can be owned by a particular individual. Whether they can afford to actually live there, but also, whether they can identify with the place.
It's the second thing which is missed much of the time. How do people from different classes and cultural makeups take ownership of that shared space in the city, how does it become a true public shared space instead of a space that dictates a "yuppy territory" that displaces those who are not.
Urban languages mark territories. How is a place made open to many?
If I may swing the discussion another direction at this juncture.
'Gentrification'.
This word seems all about class: attracting people with more money into any given area 'improves' it because people with money have better education too. They tend to fight with language rather than fists and their drug / alcohol addictions (such as they are) can be fed from loans against their assets rather than by nicking the next door neighbour's VCR. The gentry practice a softer, more insulated form of the same human vices and virtues as our poorer brethren. Put this another way, the poor people gentrification displaces practice a more visceral form of life. Their art is grafitti, which the gentry replace with window-boxes. I'm being rhetorical, of course.
What makes gentrification better? Who says? As architects, is there something more visually appealing about 'well-ordered' environments? Sure, we design stuff and perhaps the 'architecture without architects' of non-gentrified areas is somehow offensive to our sense of order. Personally, I think this is bullshit but there must be something in this; some deep-rooted Western sense of progress which aspires to gentrification. Which would be very well if it were a truly fair game but, until such times as it genuinely is, might it not be better to celebrate what we have and create improvement routes for people which are appropriate to their own circumstances? I suppose this could be construed as patronising. It is.
Hmm... thinking of this another way, in which sense are architects involved in the 'gentrification' of urban neighbourhoods? Who are our clients in this regard? Are these clients the right ones?
The issue is displacement. Gentrification is not about creating order... Its about driving out classes that don't have as much power so that it can all appear *pretty*... Just marking territory. What is orderly for one person or class is much more threatening to another person or class... If you took a person out of skid row and placed them in the middle of a gentrified neighbourhood of yuppies that person might be as guarded as you are in their neighborhood.
Good urbanism can be: Dirty. Edgy. Lively. Interactive. Heterogenous...
The problem I think is the me vs. them mentality... The culture of fear and individualism that is encouraged in our society, and that continues to propogate more fear and individualism...
We could instead subsidize and build, design better low income homes, provide structures for overcoming poverty and drug addiction, etc. instead of running it out of "general viewing space" to some other corner who knows where...
The problem is lack of community. People don't look out for one another, they only look out for number one. Not all countries and places are like that, not all american cities even, so there are alternative ideas about urban living...
solidred-
The other day I was a spectator to a group of 20 or 30 tenents in an ethnic neighborhood protesting their landlords rent hikes-
The landlord was in his late 30's , corporate blackberry yaking , blond assitant toteing , suit-wearing, angry and swearing at these older chinese tenents - while trying to pay off a policeman.
they will probably wind up getting priced out- the building which is not great will be rennovated or replaced - The thought of working for that bastard i saw is wretched- I guess that is who are clients are-
Well, maybe once he gets his next bonus / deal done his wife will be attending some charity balls ;-)
While it is sad to see market forces drive people out of neighborhoods that they have inhabited for years, it was also disasterous to see urban neighborhoods decline into poverty and despair decades ago. The 20th century saw major decline in central cities as suburbs became solidly middle and upper class. Many cities are still on the brink of economic ruin because of the lack of a middle and upper class tax base. Look at Detroit, where the central city is almost 90% black and largely poor while the suburbs are nearly 90% white and well off. The future of Detroit is perhaps more uncertain than any other American city, and the city government can scarcely afford to provide basic city services.
The future of American cities depends on SOME sort of gentrification. The old dichotomy of rich suburbs and poor inner city cannot be sustained. Some displacement is inevitable, but necessary. However, the suburbs regretably continue to develop as economically segregated communities without rental housing or affordable homes. This leaves the poor with few options for housing--and I believe that suburbs should begin to shoulder some of the burden of low-income housing as the cities gain more monied residents. Unfortunately, this is a near political impossibility, since suburban municipalities have codified minimum home and lot sizes while limiting rental housing.
Some suburbs are no in danger of becoming ghettos themselves. For instance, some Chicago suburbs south and west of the city are becoming lower class ghettos like parts of the inner city. Several suburbs are filling with the black and poor as white middle class residents flee--and these suburbs often lack the economic ability to serve these populations with the needed services.
Mixed income development nees to be utilized throughout entire metropolitain regions, not just in the central cities.
I'm interested to know how squatter communities play into this. In countries which squatter communities are plentiful, how would this similar situation effect well established favelas for instance?
bump
Lots of interesting comments here! This is definately a complicated issue - the considerations involved including: forced displacement, urban planning approaches, economic systems, development methods, cultural identities, class/race/income issues, ethical positions, service industry issues, even human nature/ philosophical considerations.
It would be valuable to study existing and historic mixed income / mixed class neighborhoods to see how they work.
I'm thinking about Jamaica Plain, MA - where there is a very diverse population, house to house - race, class, etc. vary... There is some form of 'group identity' that is other than the typical clusters of race, class, income. Some intrensic value is seen to maintaining the diversity of the neighborhood, and neighborhood groups are very active regarding all development and the cultivation of their location-specific cultural identity. (local festivals, open studios, etc.) - it makes me think that there is some key to all of this mixed income / etc. development that is centered around finding an alternate group identity that allows for variation.
What other neighborhoods exist like this?
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.