In “Race, Class, and Politics in the Cappuccino City,” Hyra examines the gentrification of the Washington D.C., specifically focusing on the redevelopment of Shaw/U Street, a historically black neighborhood. In its heyday, the neighborhood was known to be a cultural and economic center of DC’s black community. The area later began to decline and soon became known as a Black ghetto. However, with new White, middle-class workers moving in, the area has started to redevelop. This introduction of a socioeconomically different class of residents has raised cultural and political divisions and issues within the neighborhood. While gentrification has helped revitalize Shaw/U Street, the new White residents have started to push out long-time Black residents through economic, political, and cultural suffocation. Long-term residents also become marginalized as their image and stereotypes are marketed towards to and reinforced by these White newcomers. This Black branding is detrimental to closing the social gap between the two groups, and the marginalization of poor Black residents has further racially and economically separated the community.
As we discussed during class, White incomers have taken the opportunity to profit off Shaw/U Street’s Black culture. Instead of treating the Black community as alive, developers and new residents market the Black ghetto stereotypes, grabbing the aura of “coolness” associated with “living the wire.” Developers also solidify Black branding through historic preservation. This form of Black branding, however, was to make the area more palatable to White residents. Focusing on the Black Broadway days to sanitize yet further reinforce the coolness of Black culture, developers highlight the city’s Black cultural legacy while ignoring the current community. This branding places a degree of separation between the new and old residents. Blacks become living stereotypes, things that White residents avoid in public yet mimic and relish among themselves.
This divide and the problems raised by Black branding inspired my expert questions. I wondered how low-income minority communities could receive more of gentrification’s economic benefits as the Hyra portrays the divide between the poor and middle-class as stagnant, if not growing. The new jobs are either low-skill, service labor, which mostly prevents economic mobility, and high-skill, creative jobs which are following a base of college-educated, young professionals. These industries do not focus on bridging the gap rather than reinforce it. This economic concern raises the question of voice. Black institutions and amenities such as churches and basketball courts give way for dog parks and White-owned go-go restaurants. With development focused on catering to the well-off White incomers, the opinions of the long-term, Black residents are left unheard.
Finding a voice for the increasingly marginalized long-term, black community involves examining Black branding. Hyra challenges the notion that such branding could be helpful to the Black residents; in class, we discussed the issues raised by new residents appropriating only specific, “cool” parts of Black culture. While the class leaned against this culture vulturism, the solutions seemed sparse. The group regarded the 40 oz. Roses as a negative ghetto stereotype, but Baby Wale raises some thoughts. Albeit not an authentic go-go place, Baby Wale seeks to preserve a culture in a generally respectful way. Can non-Black people take any components of Black culture without reinforcing Black branding? The new White incomers claim to be inspired by Shaw/U Street’s unique Black culture; an unsanitized version of “living the wire” could scare potential residents with money to add to the community. How can the area attract middle-class, White residents who can help redevelop the region while maintaining its cultural heritage?
Preserving the community’s legacy requires retaining its declining, long-term Black residents. Without the Black residents who define the culture that attracts the new migrants, the area would lose some of its attraction. Solutions proposed to counteract the declining population was access to affordable, subsidized housing as well as rent control and equal investments in various city amenities. These would help long-term residents to maintain a presence in the area. While Shaw/U Street reflects more of a gilded ghetto, these changes could help shift the area to more align with Anderson’s cosmopolitan canopy. A place for meaningful interactions, however, requires modifications to close the racial and economic gap, which divides the foam from the coffee in this cappuccino city.
I found Hyra’s text particularly interesting because, in previous studies, the narrative had been that an influx or establishment of a large black community pushed White residents to leave those areas, while the growing pattern in places such as Shaw/U Street shows White newcomers being drawn to historically black neighborhoods. At first glance, the willingness to move into predominantly black neighborhoods instead of out seems progressive and creates the illusion that America’s cities are integrating, but the White influx into neighborhoods such as Shaw/U Street has proven to be detrimental to long-time black residents. With the White newcomers come rises in property value and, like you said, a revitalization of the neighborhood, but this directly translates to higher rent prices and costs of living, which ultimately may lead to the displacement of black residents who cannot keep up with these sudden rises. Something interesting a classmate from DC said during class is that she’s noticed that small businesses and restaurants, often by black locals, have been increasingly going out of business even when the businesses were visibly booming shortly before closing. In a progression of events, middle-class, white newcomers bring higher living costs that previously stable black residents cannot afford, forcing out these long-time residents as well as businesses that defined them before.
The eagerness of whites to move into traditionally black neighborhoods arguably perpetuates a type of segregation that allows whites to capitalize on black culture but leaves longtime black residents out of this new “trendy” narrative. Like you said, black “ghetto” stereotypes are being branded as “cool” and “authentic” and are being used to draw white trend-seekers to these neighborhoods. However, restaurants and businesses that market things like go-go music do not actually market these cultural signifiers to black folk, but rather to these white newcomers. A way to allow black residents to reap economic benefits and simultaneously avoid being pushed out of their own neighborhoods is the possibility of collaborations between black residents and these new businesses, so that the businesses are not only authentic in name but also are able to portray black culture in the perspectives of actual black residents. Stories of black culture should not be told by money-seeking white business owners. However, it is difficult to coordinate such a collaboration, as integration across races and classes is often an unreachable, idyllic concept.
To address the idea of minority communities having a voice, I think that Shaw/U Street is a classic example of the negative impacts of widening socioeconomic division. Even though the African American community was there first, white people brought their money and power and completely took over. In the end, although it is a sad truth, money and political power are closely tied, so gentrification is easily able to occur. It is especially interesting to see how as soon as white people moved in, they quickly tried to get rid of the aspects of black culture that they disliked and adapt the parts that they did. For example, the white newcomers complained of the parking issues surrounding black churches that had been in the community for years. As a result, the church planned to build parking garages to help resolve the issue, but political leaders did not support it. This makes it clear that their sentiments were solely based on race, and forced the church out of the community.
When changes like this happen and the culture of the community is forced to change, original residents are left to feel out of place. Jobs are created that are geared towards white people, and black residents are left without other options. Although the community might be “better” or more economically sound due to the incoming wealth, it is not necessarily better for the original community members.
I found this blog post/lecture extremely interesting because it relates to my final paper where I talk about gentrification in Brooklyn. The idea that Shaw/U Street was marketed as ” anaura of ‘coolness’ associated with ‘living the wire'” (Park) is very similar to some peoples perspective about Brooklyn. Personally, I believe people believe their social capital increases by living in a ‘cool’ and ‘hip’ area that was once associated with poverty. I think the idea of gentrification can be extremely dangerous, especially if white gentrifiers remove or manipulate the existing culture. Had developers labeled the area as a culture and economic hub for African American’s instead of a ghetto, the perception of Black individuals in the area could be different. I think the policies to improve the diversity (like subsided housing) could help improve diversity but I feel like the stigma around Black individuals in that area is tarnished because it was labeled as a ghetto.
It is interesting to think about the perspectives on gentrification. Yes, it is extremely dangerous. Even in a bad, poor, broken-down neighborhood, culture will be lost due to gentrification. On the other hand, opportunities and resources can finally flow into the area. It is a case of “you win some, you lose some”. How can we allow a neighborhood to have access to opportunities and keep its real culture/identity at the same time? I see this situation in Brooklyn as well. Many people leave because their own kind are pushed out and there is an inaccurate representation of their culture. It is undeniable that people gain more social capital by settling in an area that is now “cool” and “trendy”, but in the past was known for poverty.