The word "gentrification" went from being one that describes a process of urban improvement to one that social and urban activists equate with
consumerism, inequality and displacement. Even filmmaker Spike Lee famously
ranted recently on the unfairness of "bogarting" neighborhoods in his native New York. Gentrification does radically transform communities and the lives of those who have lived there for generations and as with every policy, there can be winners and losers. The traditional argument against gentrification is that as high-income individuals move in to gentrifying communities, rents and prices generally increase, thus driving out low-income families from their homes. New evidence, however, suggests that this narrative may not actually represent what is happening in our streets. Before making any conclusions on gentrification, we should therefore consider the following points.
Gentrification does not necessarily adversely affect low-income individuals
In a
study that compares gentrifying and nongentrifying neighborhoods across the US, Lance Freeman from Columbia University found that gentrification contributes very little to displacement. In fact, Freeman found that low-income residents in gentrifying neighborhoods were no more likely to move out of their neighborhoods than low-income residents in comparable nongentrifying neighborhoods. Similarly, a recent
study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found th
at "gentrification is actually beneficial to the financial health of the original residents".
It is uncontrovertibly true that neighborhoods such as Williamsburg and Park Slope in Brooklyn, Columbia Heights and H Street in Washington, DC and Condesa and Roma in Mexico City today are safer and more dynamic than they were 10 years ago. These neighborhoods have gone from being low-income, crime-ridden and even earthquake-battered neighborhoods where walking at night was considered an extreme sport to communities whose streets are lined with cafés, restaurants and bars that create jobs for low, medium and high-income individuals and attract residents from around the world who create further economic opportunities. The jobs generated in gentrified neighborhoods in Mexico City, for instance, are the lifeline that provide a livelihood to millions of people living not just in these neighborhoods, but throughout the metropolitan area.
If we really care, let's put our money where our mouth is
If we do believe that gentrification adversely affects some low-income families and individuals and at the same time we can recognize that there are concrete and important benefits from this process, then we need to ask ourselves how can we harness the gains from gentrification while compensating those who are displaced or otherwise harmed. Rather than rejecting gentrification outright, for instance, we can structure this process in a way that extends the benefits more broadly. To do so, we need to:
(1) identify who are the losers from this process, how they are being affected and what are the measures we need to carry out to support them
(2) extract part of the surplus created by gentrification (e.g. rising property values and increased economic activity) through lump-sum, one-time taxing schemes and direct those revenues to funds that promote low-income housing, services for low-income individuals and urban improvement projects, both in gentrifying and nongentrifying neighborhoods
(3) demand that all new housing developments in gentrifying areas include low-income housing that is seamlessly integrated with their new communities
At the end of the day, we all want better cities that are safer, more prosperous and inclusive, so instead of ranting about how awful gentrification is, let's start thinking of how we can make this inexorable process work for everyone.
