Saturday, November 12, 2016

Revitalize or Ruin

Many who call Boyle Heights home think that white art elitists are driving them out and ruining the authenticity of their section of town. In fact, this anti-gentrification sentiment has manifested itself as graffiti that quite literally says, “fuck white art”.[1]

Unless you want to see Los Angeles become a large scale version of skid row, it is imperative that we as a city, encourage revitalization projects. If we do nothing to modernize our city, crime will remain rampant and the streets will continue to stink of piss, feces, and vomit. Not a pretty picture, so we must do everything in our power to fight against this and instead of ruining our city, fight to reclaim and enrich it.

Let’s get one thing out of the way. I am not a native born Angeleno. I’m from thirty miles in the east, a transplant from one of LA’s many suburbs. Though one can argue that gentrification raises home prices and subsequently encourages this urban sprawl, I think its merits are beyond worth it.

Living in Los Angeles for the past few years has exposed me to Los Angeles’ best and worst. I can say with confidence that urban revitalization is key in making this city thrive and flourish and it’s all about addressing this issue the right way. Drawing from experience and a bit of research, I am going to point out the best ways to perceive and implement gentrification.

Art galleries and coffee shop aren’t ruining anyone’s neighborhoods. Last time I checked, they’re anything but. In fact, I’d go so far as to say they’re enriching them. As opposed to run down liquor stores and sketchy second-rate businesses, we can have fine art galleries and artisanal new age coffee shops. Besides, allowing urban renewal projects to take hold brings an incredible amount of benefits to communities.

First of all, gentrification or urban renewal literally revitalizes cities. Like we have seen on skid row, aggressive municipal renewal projects can provide housing to the neediest.

Urban renewal can provide disadvantaged city dwellers with decently affordable places to live. Boyle heights can learn a thing or two from Skid Row, where developments are projected to offer moderately priced residential units at a time where LA has been the nation’s least affordable housing market[2]. The influx of affordable housing, can give disadvantaged people a place to live while they better manage their day to day lives and work, most likely at jobs provided by gentrifying-businesses.

Secondly, we need to stop perceiving gentrification as a means of ‘ruining’ another culture or tradition. Instead, we should see it as a method of modernization and simply an alternative way of doing things that seeks to positively influence a community and increase prosperity. Stop thinking that hipsters bringing their cacti terrariums and ultra-indie music is toxic to urban culture.

Instead of vehemently opposing ideas that are different from our own, we should focus on the benefits gentrification can bring. The introduction and intermingling of groups that on the surface have nothing in common can spur creativity, financial stimulus, and elevate the community as a whole.

The thing is, looking at gentrification purely through the lens of a deliberate driving-out of the poor is wrong. Rather, we have to make an effort to think of urban redevelopment simply as market-driven social change. Looking at it more objectively can help us see how it benefits the communities it takes place in.

Don’t get me wrong though. It does have foreseeable downsides. Displacement and mixed social relations being mentionable. With that being said though, fixing these issues is as simple as changing the way we think and approach urban revitalization.

If I were a politician or land developer, I’d fight hardest for development plans to serve the best interests of the existing community at large. Or at least, to find a middle ground. Policy makers shouldn’t allow developers to build new projects if they don’t directly help a large portion of the existing population. Help, in this case should ideally come in the form of affordable housing and businesses that could provide jobs and services to the disadvantaged.

In order to address the argument against social mixing, it would be inherently beneficial simply to encourage tolerant attitudes towards one another. Also, the hipsters next door absolutely have to make an effort to have positive attitudes and better relations with the people who were there before them.

Urban revitalization and its ramifications are a complex issue. It’s not a black and white playing field. I understand there is a definite gray zone. However, what I am sure of is that we must consider its benefits before we condemn it because of its downsides. 



[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/04/boyle-heights-art-gallery-vandalism-hate-crime-gentrification
[2] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/livable-city/la-ol-skid-row-homeless-gentrification-housing-20160825-snap-story.html

6 comments:

  1. I think the main issue with gentrification is that it displaces a large number of socially disadvantaged people. We as a society need to find a middle ground where urban renewal projects economically stimulate our inner cities but also take into account the living needs and situations of people who already live in disadvantaged areas. It's inhumane to push people out just to redevelop an area and attract the more 'affluent' crowd. A solution that benefits both the community at large and disadvantaged people would be best.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree that these revitalization projects at heart have only the city's best interests in mind, reintegrating run-down communities into our economy and society and breathing new life into our sprawl. But you identified its drawbacks too, and nationwide the consequences of gentrification have angered economically-disadvantaged populations and historic preservation groups. These developments need to be coupled with aggressive affordable housing initiatives, especially in urban areas where cost-of-living medians have skyrocketed. Los Angeles has been championing its own affordable housing projects to combat both rising rent costs and its homelessness situation, and other cities are doing what they can to mitigate the effects of these otherwise valuable enterprises. While we should always be looking to improve our neighborhoods and attract new residents, our first allegiance should be to the people already here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The biggest concern, as Cate and Baha pointed out, is that it has to be a two-pronged approach that focused both on modernizing the city while also helping it become more affordable. This is hard to accomplish, as installing art galleries and cleaning the streets will likely raise the prices of nearby locales that now offer a more scenic environment. As long as the locals are willing to put up with the side-effects of aggressive urban restructuring, there should' be a reason LA should continue to deteriorate into a sprawling dumpster.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I lean with Oliver; modernizing a city while making it affordable is hard. As a person who has interviewed with activists in L.A.'s ethnic neighborhoods (Boyle Heights, Little Tokyo/Japantown, Historic Filipinotown) and San Francisco's Mission District, I think I'm a bit more wary of modernization than the views expressed in your piece. The way that I view modernization is that, yes, integrating the seemingly less ritzy communities of a city is important to the overall well-being of a city. Yet at the same time, the new businesses coming in need to understand the history and needs of the communities they're moving into, which is what you briefly addressed in the piece. It's just difficult to get the conversation started, howevever, when families who have been in the same area for generations are forced to move due to costs and the newcomers are automatically labeled as invaders who are erasing the community's identity. I think this is why local neighborhood council meetings are going to be crucial in L.A.'s future. People move into this city and this area more and more each year; it's up to the natives to be open to change and collaboration. At the same time, it's up to the newcomers to have a sense of respect.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with Baha, Oliver and Heidi, gentrification is not bad because of "coffee shops" and "art galleries" but because of how it forces people out of their native communities. People don't like gentrification because they cannot afford the skyrocketing rent and home prices.

    In this post, you totally ignore how people are affected economically by gentrification. Residents of areas like Echo Park and Silver Lake have no problem mixing with upper-class people. The problem they have is that they know they're going to get priced out of their community.

    As a native angeleno, I know the problem of "revitalization" first-hand. Revitalization (a euphemism for gentrification) will destroy communities. Once a bunch of yuppies move into places like eagle rock and downtown, minority communities will be forced out of the area.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I do agree with you that gentrification is something that can be greatly beneficial to many areas of LA. However as mentioned above it cannot be ignored the generally as areas gentrify prices go up and the citizens that lived in that area get pushed out. I think this issue is really important because it shows how inequality is growing growing in our country. Re-vitalization sounds like a good concept but that does not mean pushing out the current citizens is the answer to resolve the current gentrification issue.

    ReplyDelete