- Between weeks 8 and 12, each student should provide a weekly reflection (500 words) on the data you have collected to date.
- What data did you collect?
The data I wanted to focus on for this week was specifically on the topic of urban renewal. I am thankful that Professor Lopez brought up this point in his last comment because I found myself really looking into gentrification, but not enough into the idea of urban renewal (what many investors/capitalists see as a positive. This week I looked at videos, news articles, and journals that defined urban renewal as well as traced its very racist roots and harmful consequences.
- What is your initial impression of the data?
I was really taken aback by the similarities in the negative effects of urban renewal programs and gentrification. Both of these programs/movements (?) cause displacement of people, benefit wealthier folks, and lead to a fracturing of the community.
- How have the data you have collected this week changed/progressed your thinking about your research project?
I really want to weave in ideas of urban renewal with the effect of gentrification and how both of these have roots on neoliberalism.
- What challenges did you encounter while collecting the data?
No real challenges.
- What are your next steps?
Write my paper and finish my podcast.
- 2-3 annotations.
Schwab, Katharine. January 4, 2018. “The Racist Roots of ‘Urban Renewal’ and How It Makes Cities Less Equal.” The Fast Company.
In this article, Katharine Schwab gives a general overview on the origins of Urban Renewal projects. Specifically, by noting the influence of legislation, such as the 1949 Housing Act, which legally established and promoted “the federal policy of urban renewal” well into the early sixties. Schwab notes that one of the major effects of urban renewal programs was the displacement of people. She brings in information from a digital media study conducted at the University of Richmond, which traced and highlighted data on displaced families using an interactive map of the United States. Moreover, the study found there to be trends regarding race, redlining, and urban renewal. Therefore, demonstrating the negative impacts of urban renewal on poor people of color. Furthermore, the data in the study by the University of Richmond showed that although there were some positives of urban renewal, such as the bringing back “office buildings, shopping centers, and entertainment centers to cities during the height of white flight to the suburbs;” the problem was that those who were able to benefit from these new industries were disproportionately wealthier and whiter. Additionally, the Richard Nelson, a researcher on the University of Richmond’s team found that urban renewal had significant negative effects on intergenerational transfer of wealth and assets, as “people of color…were directed in public housing and the rental market [while] white families were incentivized to become homeowners.” Thus, the article concludes that urban renewal was–and continues to be a way–to subjugate communities of color.
Lindquist, John H. and Charles M. Barresi. 1970. “Ghetto Residents and Urban Politics: Attitudes toward Urban Renewal.” Law & Society Review 5(2): 239-250.
John Lindquist and Charles Barresi conduct a diagnostic survey regarding residents attitudes on the 1967 Akron, Ohio Opportunity Park Urban Renewal Project. The project included 916 families and 549 single individuals–in total, about 1,456 interviews were conducted. The data found there to be very little difference amongst races regarding positive and negative attitudes towards urban renewal as 28% of whites and 25% people of color noted having negative attitudes, while 47% of whites and 45% people of color had positive attitudes about the urban renewal. The study concludes that what the similarities in responses show is that “the ghetto is a highly complex social area, with differing types of social integration, which can be analyzed within the classic ‘community’ and ‘society’ framework” (Lindquist and Barresi 1970:248). More specifically, they explain that the “overall positiveness of the residents regarding urban renewal indicates acceptance of societal norms, while the existence of negativism indicates adherence to local community norms” (Lindquist and Barresi 1970:248). Therefore, what this study shows is that within communities and amongst individuals, sentiments regarding urban renewal may differ depending on their agenda and alliance to either societal or community norms.
“The Tragedy of Urban Renewal: The destruction and survival of a New York City neighborhood” by ReasonTV
This 6 minute documentary tells of the Urban Renewal program that spanned the area of West 99th Street in NYC. This project made it so that predominantly black residents who lived in the area of West 99th Street had to move. The video notes that around 1905 a black realtor named Philip Payton Jr started he began buying and leasing buildings in West 99th Street to blacks. West 99th Street was known for being home to musicians and writers, such as Billie Holiday. West 99th Street became known as the predominantly black area of Upper Manhattan; residents noted that they felt at home and safe there, as they knew someone would always be watching out for them and their kids. However, this all changed in 1949 when President Truman signed the Federal Housing Act, which gave cities power of eminent domain; the goal of the act was to replace “chaotic” “dying” “slums” for better housing. The rhetoric around Urban Renewal was that it was going to benefit the poor, however, this was far from the truth. West 99th Street was “declared a slum” in the 1950s and thus people had to leave. The new housing was NOT built by the government, but rather by private companies. The contracts came out as favor through political clubs. The interesting thing was that people LIVING in West 99th street DID NOT consider it to be a slum, that label was given to it by the government.
West 99th Street today:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/W+99th+St,+New+York,+NY+10025/@40.7966583,-73.9712702,18.29z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c2f628a0aafcfd:0x1bf13f020cf9904f!8m2!3d40.7972062!4d-73.97181
There’s an urban outfitters, array of condominiums, 16 handles (yogurt shoppe), starbucks, a theatre, a church.
“What we don’t understand about gentrification” by Stacey Sutton for TEDxNewYork
Description of the Sutton’s talk written by TedxNewYork: “Gentrification is a term that people throw around a lot, but it’s often oversimplified as neighborhood revitalization. In an enlightening talk, urban planning scholar Stacey Sutton shows us the true costs of gentrification. Stacey Sutton teaches at Columbia University. She thinks deeply about our common misconceptions around gentrification.”
In this video Sutton notes that there are multiple types of displacement–direct or exclusionary. I will use her definition of exclusionary displacement (5:51 min) as a way to analyze and conceptualize the displacement that Karla’s family is facing.
“What if gentrification was about healing communities instead of displacing them.” Liz Obgu for TED Talks.
Description of the Obgu’s talk written by Ted Talks: “Liz Ogbu is an architect who works on spatial justice: the idea that justice has a geography and that the equitable distribution of resources and services is a human right. In San Francisco, she’s questioning the all too familiar story of gentrification: that poor people will be pushed out by development and progress. ‘Why is it that we treat culture erasure and economic displacement as inevitable?’ she asks, calling on developers, architects and policymakers to instead ‘make a commitment to build people’s capacity to stay in their homes, to stay in their communities, to stay where they feel whole.'”
Lopez’s Comments:
Well done! I can tell that you are knee deep into this work, and it looks like you are making excellent progress. I am glad that the notion of urban renewal has given you more to work with.