Los Angeles and many other cities
around the United States have faced or are facing an urban renaissance: a time
where a city must decide what it wants to be known for in the future and
whether or not it wants to give up its past. At the center of this
transformation is gentrification, a term that is often romanticized and called
urban revitalization, urban renewal, or redevelopment. Gentrification is a
hotly debated topic in modern times, with some advocates pushing the idea that
gentrification is bad because it displaces people, causes community conflict,
and causes psychological and emotional stress to people who are displaced. On
the other side of this issue, there are the proponents that argue
gentrification is an inherently good thing for cities, encouraging social
interactions between normally separate groups of people and spurring economic
activity. Despite the fact that gentrification disadvantages the poor and
ethnic minorities by exponentially raising home/rent prices in urban areas, it
influences a financial and sociocultural stimulus by encouraging the social
admixture of low/middle-income citizens from a multitude of racial/ethnic and
economic backgrounds.
The first thing that comes to mind
when your average Angeleno thinks of Gentrification is when a bunch of
cold-brew enthusiast urban-outfitters addicted hipsters move into a formerly
low income neighborhood and make it ‘cool’, thereby raising residential and
other rent-related prices and driving out working class/lower income people
from those neighborhoods. Though cliché, this is quintessentially true.
Gentrification, by and large, is caused by the influx of more affluent
individuals, seeking an alternative to the comparatively ‘boring’ suburban
experience. Demographically speaking, the people moving into historically poor
neighborhoods are mostly young, affluent, and well-educated, with a large
number holding managerial or corporate positions. This reclamation of inner city areas
by largely middle-class groups has a substantial effect on those that lived in
gentrified neighborhoods before the yuppies decided to move in. The most well
known and well studied effect of gentrification is the displacement of
individuals who lived in areas before they were on the slate for urban renewal.
Los Angeles’s own Koreatown has a long history of this, in which studies have
shown that recent urban regeneration of Koreatown has not only excluded but
also exploited local community members, such as transnational Korean and Latino
workers.
At its heart, the dispute between both sides of the gentrification debate stem
from collective benefits, such as social mixing and financial gains in cities,
against ethical considerations, most notably displacement of working class and
minority groups and disruption of the character of a neighborhood, from one
that reflects distinct ethnic and class needs and cultural traditions into a
bland emporium.
Why is this hipster urban renaissance
happening though? Why would affluent individuals with privilege and education
want to relocate to inner cities? Gentrification is a mix between governmental
policies and a change in peoples’ living preferences. Miller describes this as
a marked shift from suburban living to wanting to live in urban environments.
The young professionals who make up most of the gentrifying population seek an
‘authentic’ living experience of sorts. Miller explains that the people who are
in their 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s are increasingly deciding to live in urban
environments because they want to experience a life they didn’t have in the
suburbs.(8) They want grit. They want cool, hip, and non-traditional. Other
motives for transitioning into city life are discussed by Allen. Allen proposes
that there are three primary factors people consider when moving: practical
incentives (like cheaper housing), peoples preferences, and ideological
factors.(1) When interviewed, Allen’s correspondents overwhelmingly discussed
that that their main reason for moving were practical and strategic considerations,
like housing cost. An example to illustrate this is the fact that renovating an
older turn-of-the-century house costs less than moving to an average suburban
home.(1) These factors have a compounding effect in influencing the
younger generations to move into cities. This migration of affluent young
people of course, has several good and bad consequences.
Promoters of gentrification argue
that its economic and political merits cannot be ignored. One facet of this
argument is that gentrification allows people with spending power to
effectively boost the economy of an area facing urban redevelopment.
Specifically, areas that attract more wealthy residents to move in experience a
renewal of sorts in terms of housing allocations for the less well-off.
Residents with higher incomes and wealth are able to support and in some cases
aggressively finance affordable housing programs, thereby giving some displaced
people a viable option aside from moving to a different area.(3) Other programs wealthy transplants may contribute to have
a positive net effect on their gentrified neighborhoods. Richer people who move
to poorer neighborhoods increase the amount of people who pay for goods and
services, taxes, and support policies on a state and federal as well. In addition,
gentrification can increase economic opportunity for the urban poor who live
within areas facing transformation. Employment rates for urban poor can
increase because increases in urban populations naturally dictate demand for
municipal services and consequently a need for municipal employment.(3) Having a surplus of jobs for those who were previously
marginalized in municipal areas is nothing but a good thing. Giving people
access to resources they otherwise would not have is incredibly useful in the
long run. Besides, without municipal employment and stimuli to get people on
their feet, the disadvantaged would resort to crime and the like- something we
can definitely do without.
Besides encouraging economic growth,
Urban revitalization projects also yield a positive net effect socially and
culturally within the cities it takes place in. Gentrification is intertwined
with the idea of social mixing: people of different socioeconomic backgrounds
learning to integrate themselves with each other and building less segregated
and more sustainable communities. Those that agree with gentrification insist
that social mixing is good for neighborhoods. Theoretically, social mixing will
help encourage an ‘urban renaissance’ of sorts, by helping to relieve
neighborhoods of the ‘subcultural sameness’ they may experience and
simultaneously offering an enticing alternative to the ‘boredom’ of suburban
communities. The very foundation of social mixing
is to create in an inclusive neighborhood. People who have studied the effects
of gentrification have often emphasized that social mixing which comes as an
after-effect of urban renewal projects is a good thing. Advocates for social
mixing explain that it should be encouraged because it replaces a marginal
anti-community with an active, responsible, and socially mobile group of
homeowners.(4)
However, there are downsides to
gentrification as a whole. Of the negative outcomes of urban renewal and
redevelopment, the most controversial is the concept of displacement.
Displacement due to gentrification takes many different forms most commonly residential
and commercial/industrial. This problem, especially residential displacement is
rampant in gentrifying cities around the United States and elsewhere. Here in
Los Angeles, displacement manifests itself in the constant battle between
‘town’ and ‘gown’. This of course, being the tug-of-war between college town
land-developers and working class people who have lived in areas before they
became gentrified. Around USC in particular, local landlords and developers
have raised rents and evicted working class families, replacing them with USC
students and charging exorbitant rates in an effort to keep working class
families out. Subsequently, communities in the
South-Central area have seen a substantial decrease in low-rent housing and
low-income families as well. Of those displaced, many were minority groups. Through
2000 to 2010, zip code 90007, which is composed of the area around USC, has
seen the Hispanic population fall sharply, contrasting the rise in other parts
of Los Angeles and has also seen a decrease in the African-American population
twice the number of anywhere else in Los Angeles.(5) All this residential displacement plays into other issues,
notably homelessness, crime, and other forms of community conflict.
Undoubtedly, gentrification has
created a few other social problems in its wake. Community conflict has taken
root in gentrified areas in various forms. One example of this are campaigns in
cities such as London and San Francisco that encourage people to ‘mug a
yuppie’. Conflicts like this within
gentrified communities are very prevalent in a part of Los Angeles known as
Boyle Heights. Boyle heights is a concurrent example of well-established
historical communities taking a stand against gentrification. Boyle Heights has
a rich history of embracing its Chicano roots and being steadfast in the
protection of that heritage. In this case, community conflict takes on the form
of a mentality-disparity between people who want to redevelop an area, and
those that already live there and have deep roots in that area. In a recent event,
a realtor invited their clients to tour the neighborhood and enjoy ‘artisanal
treats’. Almost instantly, there was a backlash in the form of messages to the
realtor. One said, “I can’t help but hope that your 60-minute bike ride is a
total disaster and that everyone who eats your artisanal treats pukes
immediately”. Make
no mistake, there were threats far more vulgar than this one, which seems
relatively benign.
Those against gentrification also
claim that it is linked to issues such as crime, homelessness, and loss of
affordable housing. However, findings indicate that there is not always a
positive correlation between gentrification and an obvious increase of these
societal phenomena. In fact, most of the time, gentrification only can be
correlated to these issues and not exactly encourage them outright. This is
echoed by the fact that only a handful of studies (6 in particular) have been
able to identify solid links between gentrification and homelessness.(6) These studies have asserted that homelessness is primarily
caused by the secondary effects of gentrification, such as the loss of social
and affordable housing or in some cases from eviction by their landlords. Crime
before and after gentrification has also been studied and the results have produced
a mixed bag. Some argue that crime falls after gentrification while others
propose that crime rises and changes depending on the category.(6) Often times, findings for both of these assertions can be
contradictory in nature. For example, one study by McDonald explains that
personal crime rates fell in gentrified neighborhoods while property crimes
remained unchanged. However, another study by Taylor and Covington found that
aggravated assault and murder increased in gentrified areas while property
crime decreased. These inconsistent findings are just too difficult to fully
trust. First of all, there are so few studies done on this that they are hard
to completely abide by. Also, the demographics of each of the cities where
these studies took place could be completely different, potentially skewing the
crime statistics.
In spite of the moral downsides of
gentrification, it is my contention that the benefits of gentrification far
outweigh its consequences. To be quite frank, I would much rather have a couple
of LBGTQ hipsters living in my neighborhood and bringing their minimalist
coffee shops and obscure used-book stores along with them than run down dirty-money
pawn shops and liquor stores. I feel this way because I think that the collective
safety and fiscal benefits from gentrification cannot be ignored. Social mixing
encourages a society where people of multiple ethnicities and incomes can come
together and learn to live shoulder-by-shoulder, learning different aspects of
life from one another. In addition, gentrification can lend a helping hand to
cities that are in dire need of socioeconomic assistance. This is plainly
evident in the greater Los Angeles area, where crime and lack of civility have
reigned supreme for decades. There was a time where Angelenos had to constantly
look over their shoulder while walking down the street n downtown. Thanks to
the city’s efforts towards gentrification and urban redevelopment however, this
is no longer as common. Thank God.
A prime example of the benefits of
gentrification that are really striking to me are its contributions to the arts
district of Los Angeles. Revitalization in communities that were once
stigmatized as ‘bad’ can lead to increased property values, greater taxes for
the city and can even lead to improved public services. Also, once cities are
perceived as ‘safer’ businesses move in, giving people who live in gentrified
areas more amenities and encouraging economic growth. Besides the socioeconomic impacts it
has, gentrification has observable cultural outcomes as well. The preference shifting
from suburban living to people in the earlier half of their life wanting an
authentic and gritty ‘city experience’ can lead to unexpected but nonetheless
positive effects. Some of the lesser known positive outcomes of gentrification
are reuse/recycling of underused buildings as well as preservation of open
space.(8) Dense urban living when paired with proper methods of
public transit is more environmentally viable than suburban sprawl, which would
encourage a car culture and would subsequently be more contaminative to the
environment.
One of the main reasons I think
gentrification is a godsend is because of social mixing and the inevitable
exchange of ideas it produces among the people involved. It has the innate
ability to enrich areas with multiple cultures at once. Staunch resistance to
urban revitalization has slowed this down though. An example of this is the
battle between artists and activists in Boyle Heights. Yes, Boyle Heights,
again. The issue in this case is a power struggle between Self Help Graphics
and activists who accuse the organization of bringing in gentrification by
encouraging a slow but steady influx of art galleries along the fringes of
Boyle Heights. Ironically enough, Self Help
Graphics has a long history of helping to elevate some of Boyle Heights’s
premier Chicano artists. Art organizations like Self Help Graphics help to give
a creative space where artists and activists alike can help to cultivate new
conceptions of their cultural identity.(9) Fighting against the art galleries alienates a possible
platform for Mexican Americans to be more socially included. Instead of pushing
away art galleries and other forms of cultural exposure, I think areas like
Boyle Heights should embrace these changes. Urban revitalization like the
increase of art galleries is a medium of elevation for the community as a
whole. Resisting these cultural changes is counterproductive because Self Help
Graphics and others like it give people a platform to express themselves and
increase social cohesion and inclusion.
Living in a socially mixed environment
can have unprecedented benefits for communities and individuals as a whole. Social
mixing as a result of gentrification efforts can lead to financial benefits for
municipalities as discussed earlier and can also cause a better balance within
the community itself. Lees explains that the rising middle class within
gentrifying areas will benefit everyone and not just those middle class
individuals. The author explains that the professional skills and the
articulate minority will inadvertently help the underprivileged population.(4) This idea is supported by Byrne, who also talks about how
marginalized individuals can benefit from affluent individuals moving into an
area. Specifically, Byrne explains that when middle class and other ‘richer’
individuals move into an area during gentrification, the more disadvantaged
members of a community can experience a decrease in their social isolation. Byrne
illustrates this by explaining how middle class individuals and professionals
who move into gentrifying areas provide socioeconomic role models to the
less-advantaged, exhibiting possibilities of social mobility and a
determination to secure better lives for themselves.(3) In doing so, the culture of poverty will degrade and the
poorer individuals within a gentrified area have role models to strive towards.
The claim that gentrification directly
causes displacement of residents who lived there before affluent people moved
in can also be refuted. The amount of people displaced because of
gentrification may be less significant than once previously thought. Though it
may push some residents out by raising rent prices, there have been only a few
studies which quantify this argument. Urban revitalization projects can indeed
displace people, but research by Freeman and Barconi have suggested that after
gentrification, disadvantaged households were 15% less likely to move out of a
gentrifying area than their counterparts in non-gentrifying areas. This challenges the notion that
gentrification projects outright push people to become displaced and homeless.
Instead, this statistic helps us to conclude that people who move out of
gentrified areas after they experience renewal might do it out of voluntary
housing turnover. Those that stay in gentrified areas may be staying because
they are accepting and optimistic about the possible public services, job
creation, reduction of poverty concentration, and desegregation of urban areas
gentrification can bring. Instead of right out displacing people, Freeman and
Barconi help to emphasize that gentrification helps retain populations because
they observe possibility for upward social mobility as well as general
improvements to the community.(10)
Urban revitalization, Renewal, urban
redevelopment, gentrification, whatever you want to call it is not a cure-all
for society’s ills. Gentrification is not perfect. It does displace portions of
communities because of the predatory rates landlords drive up. It does cause
conflicts between different social and ethnic groups. However, its positive
contributions to communities and society in general cannot be ignored. Negative
outcomes of urban revitalization such as displacement, community conflict and
arguably crime are magnitudes less influential than the positive aspects of
gentrification. Affluent groups moving into a formerly ‘bad’ neighborhood have
unprecedented effects on the economic and political structure of communities as
well as the cultural aspect of the cities gentrification takes place in. Through
gentrification, cities that were previously no-man’s’ land have experienced a
modern day rejuvenation. They have been transformed from ghetto centers of
crime to cradles of creativity, social inclusion, and open-mindedness. The
displacement and discomfort of a small portion of the population to me, is a
worthy price to pay for economic growth and a stronger sense of social integration
with one another within our nation’s troubled cities.
Works Cited
Allen,
I. "The Ideology of Dense Neighborhood Redevelopment: Cultural Diversity
and Transcendent Community Experience." Urban Affairs Review 15.4
(1980): 409-28. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.
Atkinson, Rowland. Does Gentrification
Help Or Harm Urban Neighbourhoods?: An Assessment of the Evidence-base in the
Context of New Urban Agenda. Bristol: ESRC Centre for Neighbourhood
Research, 2002.
Byrne,
J. P. "Two Cheers for Gentrification." Howard Law Journal 46.3
(2003): n. pag. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.
Carroll,
Rory. "'Hope Everyone Pukes on Your Artisanal Treats': Fighting
Gentrification, LA-style." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media,
19 Apr. 2016. Web. 15 Oct. 2016.
Dreier, Peter. "Town versus Gown in
Los Angeles." New Labor Forum. Vol. 22. No. 1. SAGE
Publications, 2013.
Gorska,
Karolina M. Different Shades of Change: Historic Districts in Los Angeles
and Their Impact on Gentrification and Neighborhood Trends. Thesis. UCLA,
2015. Los Angeles: UCLA, 2015. Print.
Lees,
L. "Gentrification and Social Mixing: Towards an Inclusive Urban
Renaissance?" Urban Studies 45.12 (2008): 2449-470. Web.
Mejia, Brittny, and Steve Saldivar. "Boyle
Heights Activists Blame the Art Galleries for Gentrification." Los
Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 4 Aug. 2016. Web. 15 Oct. 2016.
Miller,
Lindsey Kozelko. Isolation and Authenticity in Los Angeles' Arts District
Neighborhood. Thesis. Thesis / Dissertation ETD, 2014. Los Angeles: USC,
n.d. Print.
Park,
Kyeyoung, and Jessica Kim. "The Contested Nexus of Los Angeles Koreatown:
Capital Restructuring, Gentrification, and Displacement." Amerasia
Journal 34.3 (2008): 126-50. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.
The Contested Nexus of Los Angeles
Koreatown, Kyeyoung Park and Jessica Kim
Gentrification and Social Mixing:
Towards an Inclusive Urban Renaissance? By Loretta Lees
Town
versus Gown in Los Angeles, Peter Dreier
Does
Gentrification help or harm Urban Neighborhoods? By Rowland Atkinson
Different Shades of Change: Historic
Districts in Los Angeles and their Impact on Gentrification and Neighborhood
Trends. By Karolina Maria Gorska
