Urban Revival: Gentrification in Los Angeles and Beyond

            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.[1] 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.[2] 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.[3]

            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.[4] 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.[5] 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’.[6] 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”.[7] 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.[8] 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.[9] 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.[10] 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.

---

[1] The Ideology of Dense Neighborhood Redevelopment, Irving Allen

[2] The Contested Nexus of Los Angeles Koreatown, Kyeyoung Park and Jessica Kim

[3] Two Cheers for Gentrification, J. Peter Byrne

[4] Gentrification and Social Mixing: Towards an Inclusive Urban Renaissance? By Loretta Lees

[5] Town versus Gown in Los Angeles, Peter Dreier

[6] Does Gentrification help or harm Urban Neighborhoods? By Rowland Atkinson

[7] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/19/los-angeles-la-gentrification-resistance-boyle-heights

[8] Isolation and authenticity in Los Angeles' Arts District neighborhood, Lindsey Kozelko Miller

[9] http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-self-help-graphics-20160718-snap-story.html

[10] Different Shades of Change: Historic Districts in Los Angeles and their Impact on Gentrification and Neighborhood Trends. By Karolina Maria Gorska