Posh, exclusive condos and ubiquitous Starbucks cafes now replace old, dilapidated tenements and corner liquor stores, courtesy of that polysyllabic word that is as difficult to pronounce as it is to prevent: gentrification. I cannot remember when I first encountered the word, but when I did I quickly labeled it a euphemism for urban strangulation. While I laud the reinvigoration of urban minority communities plagued by the onslaught of inadequate housing, abandoned lots, drug dealing and gang violence, among other issues, I question the extent to which such structural adjustments benefit the residents of these communities. By reconstructing the appearance and increasing the value of urban communities, gentrification cracks the neighborhood door open for new kinds of buyers with higher socioeconomic levels.
What could be wrong with gentrification, then, if it encourages economic diversity in formerly impoverished areas? The inextricable links between race and class demonstrate the harrowing effects of gentrification, for it is only in squalid black and Latino communities that highfalutin' builders come in with their revitalization plans. Some are successful in seducing local organizations with the vision of a peaceful, upstanding community devoid of the fracas to which it has been accustomed. Enamored of the prospect of a new community, these organizations forget about the residents too poor to reap the benefits of this costly dream, the residents who have lived in the community for years, participating in its myriad transformations. They are the history, the backbone. Without this group, the community is vulnerable to the sort of change that discredits its residents and its history.
Gentrification represents the concurrent delight and plight for the urban environment as it suffocates communities, compromising rich histories of migration and struggle for profit maximization. Revitalization projects lead to higher rent, which forces those who cannot afford the hikes to settle elsewhere. This doesn't seem to encourage economic diversity at all.
Private companies are not committed to preserving the integrity of communities. They could care less about people having to move. In fact, they unwittingly facilitate low-income residents' relocation. Urban planning agents buy out houses one at a time in hopes of creating a new community whose skin may be black, tan or white so long as it has green undertones.
Historically, the connection between race and physical space - the geographic locations where minority communities have been placed - have birthed urban cultures that gentrification threatens. These urban cultures of which I speak are often confused with cultures of poverty shared by underrepresented blacks and Latinos. Urban revitalization programs take a "tabula rasa" approach to community rebuilding, finding it easier to rid communities of their cumbersome low-income residents rather than establish initiatives to aid these groups. The physical space is "revitalized" while its occupants are in limbo.
Gentrification does not encourage economic integration - or even ethnic integration. Rather, it rids itself of responsibility for residents by deconstructing their living spaces. It changes the face of minority communities - literally.
The "G" word marks the sudden return of former suburbanites who took off during the era of white flight. They now seek to "de-ghettoize" the urban environment to which they are "entitled." Not only do the suburbanites stake their claim in the scramble for low-income communities, but elitist institutions (including our dear Brown, my friends) also play a role in destroying communities. The University of Chicago, for example, continues to tear down property in my community to build residence halls. The school has even given many of its faculty credits to live in newly constructed homes in my neighborhood. Community history fades into nonexistence as university buildings become its new landmarks.
Increasing the value of the community and, consequently, the income of residents, gentrification incites residential income segregation. This affects racial demographics, for privileged non-minority groups relocate to formerly predominantly minority communities and underprivileged minority groups who once dominated these communities move to - well, I don't even know where they relocate. To homeless shelters? Maybe to Section Eight housing? That couldn't be, considering that Section Eight housing is being torn down across the nation.
Urban revitalization projects redefine socioeconomic standards while undermining the history and cultures that exist within these communities. Realtors even go as far as using newly gentrified communities' historical underpinnings as marketing schemes, in spite of having denigrated the residents who helped form these histories. Take a trip through historically black Harlem in New York or Bronzeville in Chicago and see how affluent white residents are the new face of such communities. Such neighborhoods have undergone the necessary transitions, but at what cost? While giving minority communities a well-needed cosmetic facelift, gentrification removes those who have little to offer the community (which happens to be the former residents).
Gentrification is, undoubtedly, bittersweet. Coupling the process with changes in public policy could ameliorate the conditions that low-income residents face. Easier said than done.
Renata Sago '10 wonders who came up with the word "gentrification." Try to say that five times fast
