My question focused on making sense of gentrification as an inevitable repercussion of economic development of urban areas. In “Race, Class, and Politics in the Cappuccino City,” Derek Hyra emphasizes the government’s role in developing D.C’s downtown as a necessity for economic growth, as it provided more jobs and welcomed suitable housing for individuals settling into the city for their new jobs. There has been a wave of “white flight” back into the city as suburban residents seek new job opportunities and the entertaining thrills in the city. The government partnered with private developers to accommodate the need for housing, as DC did not have the financial assistance of taxpayers to raise funds (as over 50% of DC’s land-government agencies, nonprofits, public universities are non-taxpaying entities). Because of DC’s focus to develop the inner-city as a trendy, entertainment machine, minority residents that have historically occupied those spaces become displaced and outcasted within their own neighborhoods, specifically Shaw/U Street.
This process of gentrification, where wealthier, typically-white residents overtake political and spatial power from long-term, typically-working class inhabitants and completely transform the “community,” is seen negatively from a social standpoint. However, from an economic perspective, gentrification seems inevitable as the government, corporations, and even incumbent residents can invest in the production of urban space (able-inhabitants participate in “incumbent upgrading” and are usually the first wave of gentrifiers). It can also be argued that it is advantageous to the city, as it results in improved infrastructure, higher job outlook, and positive visibility. The government is placed in a tough situation, where it is aware of the political disadvantages of the displaced/outcasted minorities and the cultural/financial divide they face, but want to ensure the city’s prosperity. What policies can it implement to ensure fairness for both parties involved? Many of the issues arising from gentrification is because of the distinct racial and socioeconomic divide. With these visible disparities (ie. African Americans lining up in front of the food pantry or near a homeless shelter that is right across from a new, luxury condo), old-timer residents feel even more uncomfortable in the space they call ‘home.” With increasing housing values and feelings of unbelonging, many of them don’t find the area worth the price and leave the community they built their identity from. Based on this evidence, is it possible to obtain the so-called ideal mixed-income housing model where there is a balance of healthy, collaborative space between people of different socioeconomic backgrounds?
The class discussion involved several governmental approaches: rent control and subsidized housing, equal investments to various urban spaces, and initiating community-building that promoted an integrative, collaborative environment. While these all seem like very plausible solutions, I feel like it is difficult to implement because long-term residents still feel the societal pressures of lacking a community of which to call home. The fact that the government is helping to alleviate competitive housing prices might cause an emotional burden on the residents, as they feel like they do not have enough social or moral capital to sustain themselves. This will especially be the case as the city becomes more developed, more people with different values and goals come in; the city will stray away from the place you once knew.
The reading also touched upon how the political leadership of minorities, such as figures of the Black Machine, gave a voice to lower-income, working-class residents who were subjected to racial discrimination. These poor, dangerous communities of the city were considered factors that lead to white flight into the suburbs. I am curious if the rise of African American political power in DC will enable African American residents of Shaw/U Street, as well as the white gentrifiers, to become more integrated based on the political collaboration and economic policies. There is also the possibility that another “white flight” could occur because the white residents feel like they’re not as represented. Trying to find a balance between newcomers who contribute knowledge and entertainment to the city’s economy, and old-timers who have a historical right to remain in the neighborhood and work their butts off to do so, is a very fragile process which reflects the intense racial ties and spatial claims groups have to the city.
It is important to realize that this economic and cultural divide brought upon by the government is not just occurring at a permanent level (between old and new residents), but also at a temporary level. The influx of festivals draws newcomers in for a brief amount of time within the spaces of residents and completely changes the community. This demonstrates that profit-driven behaviors of the government and various private organizations who see the positives of festivalization outweighing the negatives. Residents can become tourists within their own city, but is it worth it if their “home” invites more strangers every year? Is there a sense of unity among the community if the government recruits mainstream artists rather than choosing artists that represent the authenticity of the area? It is interesting to see how, in these two cases of permanent and temporary urban renewal, how the social institutions as broad as the government, and their priorities, can influence one’s interpretation of “home” or “community.”
I really enjoyed reading your blog post regarding gentrification and how it is economically almost inevitable in the community. Additionally, how economically, gentrification positively impacts the city because it brings in new jobs and infrastructure. However, socially, gentrification negatively impacts the city. If gentrification brings about positive change economically, shouldn’t the residents in the community benefit with higher paying jobs? This speaks to the clear disparities among races and classes that still exist in America today. These new jobs are only available to a certain group of people: the creative class. The creative class typically consists of wealthy, educated white people. Due to their privilege in race and class over the people who live in neighborhoods before they are gentrified, the creative class accesses these new jobs before the residents. I think the only way for gentrification to truly benefit people across races and classes is to address a large issue in American society. The issue is one of race and class equity and equality, which is something that people have been fighting for for decades. Also, equal and equitable higher education would also help. Until these issues are faced and fix, I do not see how gentrification can equality benefit old and new residents.
These were definitely some interesting thoughts on gentrification from various lenses. I wonder about how to think about some sort of idyllic mixed-income situation where distinct racial and economic communities are able to coexist. While this imagined community seems like it could be mutually beneficial for all parties, with our understanding of gentrification these could only take place in existing low-income communities. A mixed income community could not exist in a previously wealthy community because the low-income individuals do not have the money to move into these spaces in the first place. Perhaps, instead of just thinking about how to limit gentrification of low-income spaces to the point where they are racially and economically mixed, we could also think about how to make wealthier spaces more accessible to populations who usually could not afford these through policies like affordable housing mandates in wealthy areas and so-on. Perhaps this seemingly idyllic mixing of society could be a two-way street.
You present some great ideas and question in this blog post. The question that stands out to me most is: what policies can be implemented to ensure fairness for both parties involved? It is difficult to implement policy that will benefit both and most likely any policy we use will have impacts unfavorable to one side. If downtown areas have to be developed, they should be developed in ways that do not make a place white. People currently living there must have more power in determining how the place will change. I believe that we currently lack imagination in picturing what a developed place looks like. We need to redefine what we see as “developed”.
As a resident of D.C. I found your blog post really interesting to read. In terms of affordable housing, D.C. has high potential for increasing density and inner-city access, given that it currently has a building height limit and a relatively high number or low-density neighborhoods close to downtown. Your concern about maintaining the authentic cultural experience in the neighborhood is important, yet given the current rapid rate of displacement in a city characterized by some metrics as the most rapidly gentrifying city in the country, it seems like the most urgent thing is to change policies which actively prevent the construction of affordable housing.
The discussion of D.C. politics is also really interesting, because while the city has always had a Black mayor since power was returned from the federal government in the form of home rule, the City Council and other lower positions are becoming increasingly white.
Emily, I really enjoyed reading your blog post on urban renewal and its implications in Washington D.C. I found myself drawing on many connections from my own experiences with gentrification in Portland, Maine. Your questions on the governments work towards making Washington D.C. accessible to all socioeconomic groups as gentrification continues to rise left me with a few comments, but sadly no right answer. I believe that a very prominent yet negative aspect of urban renewal/gentrification is entitlement to space. Many gentrifiers feel entiteled to the spaces they are moving into, therefore they do not realize the implication their movement has in these spaces. This train of thought is embedded in the foundation of this nation when the first colonizers setteled in the “New World” and took the land from it’s indigenous inhabitats with the intentions of enlightenment for everyone. Similarly, this is seen today through gentrification. With gentrifiers from high socioeconomic backgrounds coming into neighborhoods and making them “better” and/or “safer.” Ultimately kicking out and displacing many of it’s original and long term inhabitants who cannot afford to live in the same spaces as them. What is unique about Washington D.C. is though is the governments work in keeping long term residents in by subsidizing homes. Unfortunately, this has its own implications like you discussed — gentrification takes away the “homey” aspect they once had of their neighborhoods. Prehaps fighting gentrification is more than just subsidizing homes for residents. Combating the negative implications of gentrification requires changing process of thoughts that support white and classist entitlement to spaces. Still, there are so many other things that need to be done to address and combat gentrification.
This is a really interesting topic to think about. In discussing the temporary influx of non-residents to a locale for entertainment purposes, I can’t help but think of so many European cities that are plagued with tourism. In many instances, locales will rally against this in different ways in attempt to maintain authority of their home spaces. However, from a macro lens, it’s important to think about the larger economic stimulation this provides for a place. Not to be too general, but manufacturing and industry has largely exited the West compared to the pre-neoliberal modern economic era. So sure, the tourism may be overbearing and prompt a dilution of a space’s real culture, but it is also contributing positively to the local economy that, in many cases, needs stimulation. It truly is a double-edged sword. The same can be said, in a way, for my hometown of Springfield, MA. Springfield has deteriorated in the neoliberal area after being a one time manufacturing powerhouse. Recently a nearly billion dollar casino was built downtown. They did a fine job and everything but all the economic stimulation and job projections have fallen short. Still though, do the benefits of this urban investment outweigh the negatives. It’s tough to know for sure.