In the selected sections of There Goes the ‘Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up, Freeman introduces gentrification and its proposed causes and effects. There are quite a few causes and drivers listed, each of which fall somewhere on the spectrum between production- and demand-side and between neutral to politically/socially charged. Overall, it seems that Freeman is attempting to contrast the economic explanations with the experiences of residents who have lived through the process of gentrification, specifically calling into question the supposed neutrality that production-side theories establish.

For part of my discussion question, I asked whether or how gentrification can fit into the framework of growth politics, specifically either the growth machine or the socio-spatial perspective. This question came to mind, as my final project centers around the hyper-gentrification of Chelsea in downtown Manhattan. We have discussed Chelsea so far as it is home to the High Line and through Kevin Loughran’s article entitled “Parks for Profit: The High Line, Growth Machines, and the Uneven Development of Urban Public Spaces.” In this article, Loughran argues that “City governments and developers build luxury public spaces to lure tourists and wealthy consumers for leisure and consumption….while parks catering to poor communities and immigrants are underfunded, forgotten unless they can serve “‘growth” schemes’” (50). During class, we discussed the larger theory of cities as machines for economic growth. Under this definition, cities are built, shaped, and maintained around the interests of those who will benefit from the growth, i.e. entrepreneurs, developers, and elites. 

With this concept of growth politics via the growth machine in mind, it is now possible to observe its connection to gentrification. In particular, Freeman describes how many “explanations of gentrification point to society-wide forces as culprit” (114), including “changes in commuting cost, demographic change, and consumer tastes and the restructuring of the economy” (114). In this view, “capital is like a force of nature, inevitably seeking the highest rate of return” (114). As follows, elites, entrepreneurs, and developers are often those investing the capital and thus will seek returns on their investments. If and when these elites settle in these gentrifying neighborhoods, they will likely try to improve it according to their standards, make accessible their desired amenities, and become involved in local politics in order to better serve their interests (financial and social). So while the growth machine may relate to the expansion of cities or areas, I think its underlying logic can be useful in recognizing the role that elite and capital-driven redevelopment plays within gentrification.

Lastly, in our class discussion, we discussed how gentrification can alter the way that new and old-time residents interact with public services and amenities in the neighborhood. Further, we questioned the extent to which growth via redevelopment in gentrified areas serves as progress. Freeman discusses how in many ways gentrification is not a neutral process and, often, the amenities and services introduced are only available to new residents–driving further distance between these two groups. This view moves beyond the impersonal forces, claiming that new services, amenities, and stores are instead “for whites moving into the neighborhood point[ing] to human agency rather than the market as the driving force behind gentrification” (114). This relates to Loughran’s piece and our wider discussion on the High Line, in which we explained how the High Line becomes a place accessible to only some residents and neighborhood visitors, often reinforcing existing sociopolitical inequalities and power dynamics. I think this is important to consider, in that the production-side arguments may be worthwhile, though they can gloss over the harsh implications that growth and redevelopment can have on long-term residents. Further, it is a start to developing a framework that can reconcile the lived experiences of residents with societal and economic factors that may be important drivers of gentrification.