The LA Times featured this pro-gentrification op-ed piece . It doesn't really make any particularly novel points (and its brevity probably prevents it from being too nuanced), but it does stand in interesting contrast to this recent Paul Schwartzman offering in the Post (I can't help but point out that the title of the Post article, "District Redevelopment Hurts Poor, Voters Say," is technically incorrect since the article is based on a telephone survey of those REGISTERED to vote, NOT those that actually do vote). I always hate it when a story is based on a survey & they don't give you the exact wording of all questions & responses (or when the questions or available responses are so impossibly vague as to be useless).
The Post article didn't seem to offer much aside from a little vague discussion over who may, or may not benefit from the increased development & the taxes it brings. Maybe the real problem is that gentrification/redevelopment is incredibly complex & not something that is entirely good or bad, but rather can be good or bad for certain groups to varying degrees depending on the particular scenario (such that looking at the entire may be too broad a view). Another obstacle might be trying to pin down a particular point in development, because the situation in a place can change quickly. Almost everyone could probably agree that what happened in SW was an abomination. The case of SW is different from much of what you see today -except for things like Kelo, & our baseball stadium, because it was an entirely inorganic process resulting from a government taking under eminent domain. Most redevelopments are more of a mix of organic & inorganic (I would argue that the New Town proposal for the Capital City Market, despite coming from a land an business owner, is almost entirely inorganic). Organic is preferable because it doesn't obliterate (at least it doesn't always, and not so quickly [cities are always changing so things naturally change with time], obliterate) what stood before it. Like I said, complicated issue, & really hard to address before coffee. For more on the topic, check out the gentrification links in the sidebar.
5 comments:
Very interesting. Thanks for the link to the WaPo story--I'm almost certain I was one of those polled.
The real problem with the language is that neighborhood re-investment doesn't necessarily equal gentrification. It doesn't always equal revitalization either--which is an asset-based strategy--what you call "organic" in your post.
Because in the greater neighborhood, for a long time reinvestment was the rehabilitation of formerly vacant buildings, I didn't think of this as a gentrification process.
Now I do use the G word, but to refer to effects resulting from market improvement where there are no plans and programs in place to retain people of limited means, who otherwise want to stay.
See More about Contested Spaces -- Gentrification; Community Preservation and Gentrification, and Change is Change, but is change race or class?.
This entry is when I finally agree to use the G word: More on unaffordable housing (Yes, gentrification is part of the program in DC).
Note that your mentioning the Shelterforce stuff (mentioned in the CP & G entry) moved my "learning" along.
i would like to see a convincing social science argument on how the current re-development "helps" the poor (earning $30,000/yr or less) in the city. the fact that some yahoo is quoted in the article as thinking affordable housing *starts* at 200k shows that a lot of people have a disconnect when they think of words like "poor" and "affordable".
- AP
Last time I was in old Pasadena (a couple of months ago) I was struck by how similar the retail was to Arlington or Chinatown/Gallery Place. The same old chain stores. I wish they had kept a little more local flair.
I also would like to know what affordable to the middle class means. According to my friends in LA, Silverlake is now way out of reach. And my friends in Pasadena...their house has jumped from 400K to 800K in the last five years.
Other issues impact retail development, particularly with regard to independent businesses. You can't really blame this on "gentrification," as it is the result of so many other forces.
E.g., Portland Oregon is "gentrifying," but for a town of its size it has one of the most vibrant independent retail cultures around. Why? Well, because during the period of outmigration experienced by most cities, Portland stayed the same, plus I aver urban growth boundaries limited the development of speculative retail space on the outskirts (I am guessing, although I haven't checked, that the Portland region has less retail space per capita than the national average), so the local independent business culture never withered on the vine because of the double whammy of the loss of customer base + competition from national chains.
Because the retail industry is so inexorably focused on chains, you have to be very diligent and organized to retain and further develop independent retail. There are various efforts around the country, some are really good.
E.g., I have argued that cities need to work with the National Grocers Assn. (an assn. for small companies) to work to develop urban-friendly supermarkets, not just the behemoths...
Post a Comment