Evolving Public Interpretation of Gentrification

Just like pornography, everyone seems to know "gentrification" when they see it. See a Starbucks or Whole Foods move into a neighborhood? That's gentrification. Find out that a house sold for an exorbitant amount or that rents at some building doubled? That's gentrification. See bike lanes added to your street, or a rack of bike-share bikes pop up near a busy corner? That's gentrification.
– Pete Saunders, 2017
Gentrification is one of the most controversial issues in American cities today. But as the epigraph above clearly indicates, it also remains one of the least understood. Few agree on how to define it or whether it is boon or curse for cities. Due in large part to this lack of definitional clarity, opinions about gentrification in the past have been largely shaped by the negative connotations and effects of gentrification that have been highlighted by the mainstream media. For instance, according to Duany, “These days, whenever more than a handful of middle-income people move into a formerly down-at-the-heels neighborhood, they are accused of committing that newest of social sins: ‘gentrification’” (36).
Not surprisingly, this negative perception of gentrification on the part of the American public has represented a major, long-term constraint to developing the types of public-private partnerships that can help rebuild the inner cities of many major cities in the United States today. In this regard, Duany concludes that, “This loaded term [of gentrification] -- conjuring up images of yuppies stealing urban housing from rightful inhabitants -- has become embedded in the way many activists understand urban evolution. And the thinking behind it has become a serious obstacle to the revival of American cities” (36). More problematic for proponents of gentrification has been the uptake of this negative view by policymakers and the American public in general. Civic developers have long recognized the challenges that are involved in overcoming a “not in my backyard” mindset, and the residents of even deteriorating neighborhoods may be highly reluctant to allow even positive changes in their communities that may affect them negatively on a personal level. This reluctance, of course, will only heightened when the term gentrification is used without operationalizing what it actually means to the residents and business owners of a given neighborhood. Longtime residents and business owners have a vested interest in their communities, so any perceived threat to their individual interests will naturally be met with fierce resistance.
It is important to note, however, that although this negative view of gentrification has become especially pronounced over the past half century or so, the gentrification process has been a fundamental part of the American landscape since before the fin de siècle. Indeed, gentrification has changed over time and has a history dating back to the early 20th century. But since the late 1970s, gentrification has dramatically reshaped cities like New York, Seattle, San Francisco, and Boston and has had an outsized influence on the political, cultural, and architectural history of cities. Consequently, in any setting, even the mere mention of the word gentrification is likely to start an interesting debate, due to the polarizing nature of this topic.
In recent years, the ubiquity of this phenomenon has garnered a growing amount of attention from policymakers, the media and the general American public, causing a certain shift in its discourse of media and academic evaluation. Through the case study of New York City, this paper will underline the contemporary interpretation of gentrification by analyzing journalistic and academic works. Additionally, it will deconstruct the causes behind its negative connotation and how, over the years, leaders and activists have addressed these negative connotations in order to turn this misguided trend into a constructive revitalization of American neighborhoods.
Although this topic is widely known, few have a succinct or universally accepted way of defining the topic. Authors such as Jackson (2014) summarize gentrification as the process when residents are forced from their homes because of increased rents, or private action from landlords attempting to repurpose/develop their property for higher profits. This summarization, though, limits gentrification to instances where residents are “forced from their homes” with no viable alternatives available, an eventuality that is anathema to the vast majority of Americans.
Other authors such as Freeman and Barconi (2004) focus on the mobility rate of “disadvantaged households.” Here again, Americans are generous people and want to help their fellow citizens that may be disadvantaged, but this view of gentrification fails to determine what type of disadvantage is involved with any degree of specificity. In fact, some people may be considered as living in “disadvantaged households” because they voluntarily elected to relocate from a gentrified neighborhood due to other reasons such as new employment opportunities or changes in family dynamics.
In fact, regardless of the actual benefits that gentrification brings to deteriorating neighborhoods, the gentrification process itself is widely regarded by residents and the American public alike in its most negative light. This undesirable outcome has been the direct result of the inaccurate and misinformed manner in which the gentrification process has played out in the mainstream media, perhaps because the perceived harms that are caused by gentrification make for more interesting and compelling reading than the modest and even stellar success stories that have been realized in recent years. Part of the problem may relate to the term “gentrification” itself. The etymology of the term shows that it is derived from late Middle English and connotes “superiority of birth or rank,” and most Americans bristle when they are confronted with such affectations. Similarly, the predecessor term “urban renewal” also assumed negative connotations for many of the same reasons that have plagued proponents of gentrification.
Indeed, in many ways, there has been as much focus on developing informed definitions of gentrification in the recent scholarship as there have been studies seeking to identify new opportunities to apply gentrification principles to help revitalize cities across the country. This trend highlights the diversity of definitions that are bantered about in the press and even government reports, so it is readily understandable that gentrification has assumed its generally negative connotations. This trends also makes it clear that there is a glaring need for the critics of gentrification to better understand what the term actually means and why the prevailing arguments against gentrification are either inflated or just wrong from the outset.
For example, an article by Freeman (2016) found that, “Everything about gentrification is controversial — even its definition” (2). Citing the results of sociological studies that evaluated the manner in which various researchers depicted gentrification, Freeman showed that there is little convergence concerning what efforts constitute true gentrification and more importantly, how these different efforts are affecting the residents of cities where the process has already taken place. In this regard, Freeman emphasizes that, “Gentrification is painted alternately as a destroyer of neighborhoods or a savior of cities. These competing views are driven in part by misconceptions about what the word means and what it entails” (5). Some of the prevailing misconceptions about gentrification include the following:
1. Gentrification leads to lower crime: This argument is a common fallacy committed by many proponents of gentrification. Drawing on statistics that show that crime has significantly decreased in some cities that have experienced gentrification, proponents maintain that the two outcomes are inextricably interrelated. The research to date, though, indicates that the opposite is actually true. As Freeman points out, “Studies of the relationship between crime and gentrification have found [that] gentrification often leads to increases in crime [and] one study found that larceny and robbery went up in gentrifying neighborhoods across the country” (6). Although this trend appears counterintuitive on its face, Freeman identities two main reasons why crime may increase in gentrified cities. The first reason is the harsh reality that revitalized districts represent more attractive targets for property crime and the second reason is that crime tends to increase in neighborhoods with low stability levels.
2. Gentrification causes widespread displacement. This myth about gentrification is especially pronounced and while it is readily understandable, the facts do not support the contention that the process automatically results in large-scale displacement of low-income residents. While it is true that some low-income residents are displaced from communities where the gentrification process has been rapid, long-term residents are motivated to remain due to the improvements to their neighborhood which provide a higher quality of living. In fact, research by Freeman indicates that there is just a 1.3 percent chance that New York households will be displaced in neighborhoods undergoing gentrification, a finding that is supported by comparable results in a Philadelphia neighborhood. Based on these results, Freeman concludes that increases in neighborhood income status fail to predict displacement rates. Moreover, public perceptions concerning the extent to which gentrification is actually taking place are highly exaggerated due to reports about gentrification “hotspots” such as New York City, and the vast majority of American communities have not experienced any immediate and direct positive or negative effects of gentrification.
3. Longtime residents hate gentrification. During an era when the emotionally charged debate over immigration dominates the headlines, this myth is also readily understandable but it does not change the facts. For instance, Freeman points out that, “Gentrification has a decidedly negative connotation, often painted as a loss for a neighborhood’s ‘old-timers.’ This idea is amplified by the press” (10). Although long-term residents in particular are reluctant to see their neighborhoods change, especially due to an influx of new and potentially foreign residents, the reality is that gentrification invariably introduces improvements in the quality of life and the value of their property in these neighborhoods that quickly sway their opinions. The empirical observations and experiences of long-term residents concerning the effects of gentrification therefore represent a valuable addition to the debate over the pros and cons of the process itself. This is particularly the case in New York where so-called “food deserts” abound and long-term residents find they can now secure fresh and healthy food without having to travel outside their communities.
4. Gentrifiers are white. This myth has also been fueled by high-profile media accounts of selected gentrified neighborhoods in some major American cities. As Freeman puts it, “The stereotypical image of a gentrifier is a bearded white guy on a fixie or a young white professional who treats her dog like a spoiled child. Across the United States, white infill is associated with gentrification” (11). Again, while it is true that some gentrification projects have been sponsored by white entrepreneurs and these initiatives simply reinforce this myth, gentrification is actually the new “melting pot” that is characterized by numerous minority actors, including middle-class African-Americans, Asians and Latinos. In fact, research by Freeman indicates that gentrified neighborhoods are more diverse than their non-gentrified counterparts. There are also some less apparent reasons why this myth persists, including the fact that new minority residents are less visible than new white residents, and the former are typically not regarded as interloping “gentrifiers” even when they are noticed.
Although there are other misconceptions and uninformed opinions about gentrification that muddy the debate over its respective pros and cons, it is clear that the foregoing myths are among the most common in the minds of many Americans. Indeed, it is reasonable to posit that most Americans have encountered these views in the mainstream press at some point or another, and absent any other information it is little wonder that these views tend to prevail. Therefore, the definition of gentrification that is used in a given content plays a key role in the shaping the results and conclusions of the research as well as the corresponding perceptions of gentrification among the general public (Bentacur).
Some authorities maintain that it is more accurate to place the definition of gentrification along some point on a continuum that takes into account the time, place and purpose of these types of initiatives are implemented. Certainly, the argument can be made that any type of improvements to a depressed urban environment represent some level of progress, but, depending on the definition that is used, minimal interventions may not rise to the level of true gentrification. In some cases, as noted in the introductory epigraph, gentrification has been considered as the mere addition of a new Starbucks or two and a couple of retail establishments in a depressed neighborhood.
Other researchers, however, may view gentrification as being a fundamental overhaul of a neighborhood’s infrastructure in ways that transform it beyond recognition of its former incarnation. In this regard, Bentacur notes that, “At first glance, initiatives to turn old downtowns into heritage destinations, transformation of fishing towns into tourist havens and projects including the clearance of former manufacturing plants or railway yards might be considered gentrification [but] application of the construct to every instance of rent extraction can stretch it so far as to make it meaningless” (38). Clearly, it is difficult or even impossible to effect meaningful changes in the minds of the American public using fact-based evidence when the issues under consideration are not operationalized. Some indication of this problem can be easily discerned from the different definitions of gentrification that have been advanced by various authorities, including those listed below:
· The process of renovating and improving a house or district so that it conforms to middle-class taste (Google dictionary 2019).
· The buying and renovation of houses and stores in deteriorated urban neighborhoods by upper- or middle-income families or individuals, raising property values but often displacing low-income families and small businesses (Dictionary.com 2019).
· The process of repairing and rebuilding homes and businesses in a deteriorating area (such as an urban neighborhood) accompanied by an influx of middle-class or affluent people and that often results in the displacement of earlier, usually poorer residents (Merriam-Webster 2019).
· The restoration of run-down urban areas by the middle class (resulting in the displacement of low-income residents) (Vocabulary.com 2019).
· A neighborhood is gentrifying if it is located in the central city of a metropolitan area and it goes from being in the bottom half of the distribution of home prices in the metropolitan area to the top half (Hartley 25).
· The movement into a formerly deteriorating community by middle-class or affluent residents (Saunders 2019).
· A term used in land development to describe a trend whereby previously underdeveloped areas become revitalized as persons of relative affluence invest in homes and begin to upgrade the neighborhood economically (Black’s Law Dictionary 686).
Taken together, the above-listed definitions underscore the wide range of variables and demographic groups that are included in definitions of gentrification, and the vagaries of the terms that are used (e.g., “middle-class or affluent residents,” “underdeveloped,” “run-down,” etc.) only complicate the issue. This point is also made by Drew (2019) who emphasizes, “The options available to identify and measure gentrification are wide-ranging, with different variables and criteria used in each study to designate places that have gentrified. [T]hese variations can lead to different findings about the consequences of gentrification, and the implications of these inconsistencies for effective policymaking” (3).
As noted throughout, this profound lack of definitional clarity has adversely affected the ability of the public and private sectors to secure public support for gentrification projects irrespective of their positive contributions to a given neighborhood. Therefore, Bentacur advocates an improved definition of gentrification that includes its basic constituent elements as well as the more specific aspects of a given initiative with respect to its intended goals. As Bantacur and like-minded civic developers conclude, “By distinguishing between conditions of possibility or enabling conditions applicable across the board and contingent factors addressing specific contexts, [it is possible] to keep constructs general enough to facilitate universality while providing the flexibility to accommodate changing conditions and local circumstances” (38).
In sum, proponents of gentrification emphasize how gentrification reduces the concentration of poverty and how many of the negative effects of poverty are reversed: Crime decreases, house values rise, public and private investment increases, the retail sector grows, and municipal services such as police protection and street maintenance improve (Berrey 2005; Duany 2001; Kasinitz 1988). Conversely, critics of gentrification highlight how housing becomes less affordable, poor and longtime residents are vulnerable to displacement (Lyons 1996; Robinson 1995), and established neighborhood identities change (Brown-Saracino 2004). It is important to point out, however, that even some of the positive effects of gentrification can have negative impacts on some neighborhood, most especially longtime homeowners that find their property taxes and cost of living increasing as a direct result of improvements in their communities. For example, according to Decker, “There is a widely-held belief that gentrification specifically affects homeowners by driving up property taxes, leading residents to sell their homes” (40). This argument, though, is inaccurate for a number of reasons, including the following:
1. Many regions have policies such as property tax freezes to protect long-term homeowners from unaffordable taxes; and,
2. Property assessments are infrequent and unlikely to keep pace with actual changes in market value in rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods (Decker 40).
Notwithstanding the flaws in the above-stated argument, it is difficult to convince homeowners that have experienced the negative effects of gentrification firsthand concerning the positive outcomes that can be achieved, an inevitability that has exacerbated the heated debate over gentrification and how it should be defined. As noted above, while there has been growing interest in developing such a definition, there has been less attention focused on identifying the actual effects of gentrification on individual households in gentrified neighborhoods compared to their non-gentrified counterparts.
The majority of gentrification studies have been qualitative, and they conclude that poor and longtime residents tend to be less in favor of gentrification than newcomers. Longtime residents tend to be poorer, so they are less able to afford increases in rent and property taxes and less able to afford new retail offerings that are geared toward the higher income levels of gentrifiers (Bostic and Martin 2003). In addition, longtime residents may feel alienated by changes in neighborhood identity, especially if whites move into previously minority neighborhoods (Anderson 1990; Freeman 2004; Kasinitz 1988). Further, longtime residents may also feel unsettled by the high rate instability due to neighborhood turnover (Kasarda and Janowitz 1974).
It is especially noteworthy that many of the same arguments against gentrification continued to be advanced by the mainstream media and even social science researchers despite the lack of real evidence in support of their claims. For example, a study by Decker (2019) concluded that the adverse impacts of gentrification were virtually inexorable in many instances. In this regard, Decker reports that, “When wealthy new residents move into lower-income neighborhoods, they often renovate homes and open upscale businesses. This drives up property values, property taxes, and rent. This chain of events may force current lower-income residents to move out” (39).
But is this conclusion accurate? Several recent studies challenge this conclusion. Freeman and Braconi (2004) find that poor renters in gentrifying neighborhoods in New York City are less likely to move than similar renters in non-gentrifying ones, despite their neighborhood having higher rent. The researchers speculate that despite the higher rent, these poor renters might like neighborhood changes and therefore make an effort to stay. In addition, two recent studies suggest that displacement may not be any more of a problem in gentrifying neighborhoods than in non-gentrifying ones (Freeman 2005; Vigdor 2002). Likewise, a study by Hartley (2013) also found that many of the arguments against gentrification are either exaggerated or lack evidence to support their conclusions. For instance, Hartley reports that, “Gentrification is sometimes viewed as a bad thing. However, a look at the data suggests that gentrification is actually beneficial to the financial health of the original residents” (24). This finding is especially noteworthy since it includes renters as well as homeowners that are widely regarded as the bellwether of any changes in the public’s views about gentrification. In other words, gentrification acts as the rising tide that raises all boats in a neighborhood. As Hartley points out, “From a financial perspective, it is better to be a resident of a low-price neighborhood that is gentrifying than one that is not. This is true whether residents of the gentrifying neighborhood own homes or do not and whether or not they move out of the neighborhood” (24).
A study conducted by Sullivan (2007), Reassessing Gentrification Measuring Residents’ Opinions Using Survey Data, reassesses the sentiment behind gentrification by primary data collection of sample surveys and responses in two neighborhoods in Oregon witnessing gentrification. The results were strikingly different from the main media discourse, and in likes with Freeman and Broconi’s study, stating “Nearly 62% of respondents feel their neighborhood has gotten better over the last five years. Only 4.6% feel it has gotten worse and 33.5% feel it has stayed about the same. An even higher percentage, 77.7%, is optimistic that their neighborhood will continue to get better over the next five years.” While this study is limited because it fails to record responses of those residents who moved due to change in their neighborhood, it does note that the percentage of those residents was significantly small.
The notion that gentrification does not always result in displacement may seem antithetical to some because the term is often used as a synonym for displacement. Indeed, displacement is part of the definition of gentrification offered by a number of authorities. In fact, though, if a neighborhood keeps the same number of housing units but has an influx of new residents, then displacement inevitably will occur. But in some places, it appears investment and economic revival are occurring without immediate displacement, suggesting some capacity for longtime residents to stay put and reap the benefits of increased property values — or the production of new housing or utilization of empty units.
In NCRC’s study, conducted by Richardson, Mitchell, and Franco, the data showed displacement in just 22 percent of the neighborhoods that experienced an influx of new people and new money in the time period studied. The rest did not show displacement. These findings suggest that investment and revitalization of poor neighborhoods don’t have to push out the people who lived there before. Moreover, community leaders around the nation have developed approaches to encourage investment and avoid displacement. For instance, New York City offers caps or breaks on property taxes for longtime residents. This is known as a homestead exemption, and it is often offered to help the elderly on fixed incomes remain in their homes even while their home values increase.
Additionally, local governments have found more ways to help people stay rooted in their communities: provide renters with the opportunity and financing to purchase their units; preserve and expand public housing; protect elderly and long-term residents from property tax increases; enforce building codes and offer easy options for renters to report bad landlords; negotiate payment plans with homeowners who have fallen behind on their property taxes; establish community benefits agreements with investors in large projects to ensure that local residents benefit from the investment; offer developers higher levels of density in return for funding more affordable housing units in their projects; establish a loan fund to help small business owners buy their buildings (NCRC, 2019).
Nevertheless, the negative connotations of the definitions of gentrification have made this type of progress slow, painful and expensive in far too many cases where such efforts are desperately needed to help struggling neighborhoods survive. For example, according to Capps (2019), “The conventional wisdom about gentrification is practically set in cement. Often it goes without saying that the drawbacks of neighborhood change—above all the displacement of existing lower-income residents, but also increases in rents and upticks in cultural conflicts—greatly outweigh any benefits” (3). Residents’ concerns over the potential negative effects of gentrification even halted the construction of a second headquarters operation in New York City by Amazon, an initiative that would have otherwise brought thousands of new jobs to the community (Capps).
In the final analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that gentrification is a natural phenomenon for a growing city and displaces characteristics of a city’s resilience. While the process was practiced recklessly in its early decades which earned it a negative reputation, policymakers are making amends and addressing the pressing concerns of gentrification itself. It, therefore, is undergoing a transformation in its connotation. Savvy urban developers would therefore be well advised to take the numerous prevailing views about gentrification into account when formulating new development initiatives and even avoid using the term altogether in favor of a term that more accurately reflects what is taking place in a given neighborhood. In the final analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that the definition of gentrification does, in fact, matter a great deal, most especially given the lack of definitional clarity that has characterized the controversy to date.
Bibliography
Anderson, Elijah. 1990. Streetwise. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Betancur, John J. “Gentrification in Latin America: Overview and Critical Analysis.” Urban Studies Research 37-41.
Berrey, Ellen C. 2005. Divided over diversity. City & Community 4 (2): 143-70
Black’s Law Dictionary. 1990. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
Bostic, Raphael W., and Richard W. Martin. 2003. Black home-owners as a gentrifying force? Urban Studies 40 (12): 2427-49.
Brown-Saracino, Japonica. 2004. Social preservationists and the quest for authentic community. City & Community 3 (2): 135-56.
Brummet, Quentin, and Davin Reed. “The Effects of Gentrification on the Well-Being and Opportunity of Original Resident Adults and Children.” Working Paper (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia), 2019.
Capps, Kriston. “The Hidden Winners in Neighborhood Gentrification.” CityLab, July 22, 2019.
Decker, Margaret. “The Impact of Gentrification on Homeowners.” Chicago Policy Review (March 3, 2019), 39-41.
Drew, Rachel. “Does the definition of gentrification matter?” Enterprise. https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/blog/2018/10/many-definitions-gentrification.
Duany, Andres. 2001. Three cheers for gentrification. The American Enterprise 15:36-39
Freeman, Lance. “Five myths about gentrification.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-gentrification/2016/06/03/b6c80e56-1ba5-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html.
Freeman, Lance, and Frank Braconi. “Gentrification and Displacement New York City in the 1990s.” Journal of the American Planning Association 70, no. 1 (2004): 39–52.
Graham, Robert, "The Process of Gentrification in New York City" (2017). Economics Student Theses and Capstone Projects. 46
Hartley, Daniel. “Gentrification and Financial Health.” Economic Trends (November 2013): 23-27.
“In Praise of Gentrification.” The Economist. The Economist Newspaper. Accessed November 14, 2019.
Kasarda, John D., and Morris Janowitz. 1974. Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review 39: 328-39.
Kasinitz, Philip. 1988. The gentrification of “Boerum Hill.” Qualitative Sociology 11 (3): 163-82.
Lyons, Michal. 1996. Gentrification, socioeconomic change, and the geography of displacement. Journal of Urban Affairs 18 (1): 39-62.
Mao, Jefferson. "On Gentrification in an Unhip Place." Next City. March 25, 2013.
Robinson, Tony. 1995. Gentrification and grassroots resistance in San Francisco’s Tenderloin. Urban Affairs Review 30 (4): 483-513.
Saunders, Pete. “How to understand gentrification.” Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/petesaunders1/2016/08/29/understanding-gentrification/#123c482035ec
"State of New York City's Housing & Neighborhoods – 2016 Report." NYU Furman Center.
Sullivan, Daniel Monroe. “Reassessing Gentrification.” Urban Affairs Review 42, no. 4 (2007): 583–92.
Tol, Jesse Van. “Perspective | Yes, You Can Gentrify a Neighborhood without Pushing out Poor People.” The Washington Post. WP Company, April 8, 2019.
Vigdor, Jacob L. 2002. Does gentrification harm the poor? Brookings-Wharton Papers in Urban Affairs. Washington DC: Brookings Institution.