Gentrification in American Cities: Myths, Definitions, and Reality

Introduction: A Contested Urban Phenomenon

"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 a boon or a curse for cities. Due in large part to this lack of definitional clarity, opinions about gentrification have been largely shaped by the negative connotations and effects highlighted by the mainstream media. As Duany observes, "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 public perception has represented a major, long-term obstacle to developing the types of public-private partnerships that can help rebuild the inner cities of many major American cities. Duany concludes that "this loaded term — 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 general public. Civic developers have long recognized the challenges involved in overcoming a "not in my backyard" mindset, and the residents of even deteriorating neighborhoods may be highly reluctant to allow positive changes in their communities if those changes may affect them negatively on a personal level. This reluctance is only heightened when the term "gentrification" is used without specifying 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, the gentrification process has been a fundamental part of the American landscape since before the turn of the twentieth century. Gentrification has changed over time, with a history dating back to the early twentieth century. Since the late 1970s, it has dramatically reshaped cities like New York, Seattle, San Francisco, and Boston, exerting an outsized influence on their political, cultural, and architectural histories. Consequently, even the mere mention of the word is likely to start an impassioned debate.

In recent years, the ubiquity of this phenomenon has garnered growing attention from policymakers, the media, and the general public, causing a shift in both media and academic discourse. Through the case study of New York City, this paper analyzes journalistic and academic works to illuminate contemporary interpretations of gentrification. It also deconstructs the causes behind gentrification's negative connotation and examines how leaders and activists have worked to turn this misguided perception into support for the constructive revitalization of American neighborhoods.

Defining Gentrification: A Moving Target

Although gentrification is widely discussed, few have a succinct or universally accepted definition of the term. Authors such as Jackson (2014) summarize gentrification as the process by which residents are forced from their homes due to increased rents or private action from landlords seeking to repurpose their property for higher profits. This definition, however, limits gentrification to instances where residents are "forced from their homes" with no viable alternatives — an outcome that is anathema to the vast majority of Americans.

Other authors, such as Freeman and Braconi (2004), focus on the mobility rate of "disadvantaged households." While Americans broadly want to help disadvantaged fellow citizens, this framing fails to specify what type of disadvantage is involved. In fact, some people may be classified as living in "disadvantaged households" because they voluntarily chose to relocate from a gentrifying neighborhood for other reasons, such as new employment opportunities or changes in family circumstances.

Regardless of gentrification's actual benefits to deteriorating neighborhoods, the process is widely regarded in its most negative light — a direct result of the inaccurate and misinformed manner in which it has been portrayed in the mainstream media. The perceived harms of gentrification arguably make for more compelling reading than the modest and sometimes remarkable success stories that have emerged in recent years. Part of the problem may relate to the term itself. The etymology of "gentrification" traces to late Middle English, where it connoted "superiority of birth or rank" — a connotation that many Americans find off-putting. Similarly, the predecessor term "urban renewal" also acquired negative associations for many of the same reasons that have plagued gentrification's proponents.

Indeed, there has been as much focus on developing informed definitions of gentrification in recent scholarship as there have been studies seeking to identify new opportunities to apply gentrification principles to help revitalize cities. This trend highlights the diversity of definitions circulated in the press and even in government reports, making it readily understandable that gentrification has assumed its generally negative connotations. It also makes clear that there is a pressing need for critics of gentrification to better understand what the term actually means — and why the prevailing arguments against it are often inflated or mistaken from the outset.

For example, an article by Freeman (2016) found that "everything about gentrification is controversial — even its definition" (2). Citing sociological studies that evaluated how various researchers depicted gentrification, Freeman showed that there is little convergence concerning what efforts constitute true gentrification and, more importantly, how those efforts are affecting city residents where the process has already occurred. 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 authorities maintain that it is more accurate to place gentrification along a continuum that takes into account the time, place, and purpose of a given initiative. The argument can be made that any improvement to a depressed urban environment represents some degree of progress, but minimal interventions may not rise to the level of true gentrification. In some cases, as the introductory epigraph suggests, gentrification has been considered as little more than the addition of a new Starbucks and a few retail establishments in a depressed neighborhood. Other researchers, by contrast, view gentrification as a fundamental overhaul of a neighborhood's infrastructure that transforms it beyond recognition. 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).

Some indication of this definitional problem can be discerned from the range of definitions advanced by various authorities:

• Google Dictionary (2019): The process of renovating and improving a house or district so that it conforms to middle-class taste.
• Dictionary.com (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.
• Merriam-Webster (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.
• Vocabulary.com (2019): The restoration of run-down urban areas by the middle class (resulting in the displacement of low-income residents).
• Hartley (25): A neighborhood is gentrifying if it is located in the central city of a metropolitan area and goes from being in the bottom half of the distribution of home prices in the metropolitan area to the top half.
• Saunders (2019): The movement into a formerly deteriorating community by middle-class or affluent residents.
• Black's Law Dictionary (686): 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.

Taken together, these definitions underscore the wide range of variables and demographic groups included in conceptions of gentrification. The vagueness of terms such as "middle-class or affluent residents," "underdeveloped," and "run-down" only complicates the issue. As Drew (2019) 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. These variations can lead to different findings about the consequences of gentrification, and the implications of these inconsistencies for effective policymaking" (3).

This profound lack of definitional clarity has adversely affected the ability of public and private sectors to secure support for gentrification projects, regardless of their positive contributions to a given neighborhood. Bentacur therefore advocates an improved definition that includes both basic constituent elements and the more specific aspects of a given initiative with respect to its intended goals. As Bentacur 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).

Four Persistent Myths About Gentrification

Several misconceptions about gentrification dominate public discourse. Freeman (2016) identifies the following as among the most pervasive:

1. Gentrification leads to lower crime. This is a common fallacy among gentrification's proponents. Drawing on statistics showing that crime has declined in some cities that have experienced gentrification, proponents maintain that the two outcomes are inextricably linked. The research to date, however, suggests the opposite may be true. As Freeman points out, "Studies of the relationship between crime and gentrification have found [that] gentrification often leads to increases in crime — one study found that larceny and robbery went up in gentrifying neighborhoods across the country" (6). Although this finding appears counterintuitive, Freeman identifies two main reasons why crime may increase in gentrified areas: revitalized districts represent more attractive targets for property crime, and crime tends to increase in neighborhoods experiencing low stability due to high turnover.

2. Gentrification causes widespread displacement. This myth is especially pronounced and, while understandable, is not supported by the evidence. While it is true that some low-income residents are displaced from communities where gentrification has been rapid, long-term residents are often motivated to remain due to neighborhood improvements that raise their quality of life. 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 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 about the extent of gentrification are highly exaggerated due to media focus on "hotspots" such as New York City; the vast majority of American communities have not experienced immediate or significant effects of gentrification.

3. Longtime residents hate gentrification. This myth is also readily understandable, but it does not align with the facts. 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 are often reluctant to see their neighborhoods change — especially due to an influx of new and potentially unfamiliar residents — gentrification invariably introduces improvements in quality of life and property values that can quickly shift their opinions. The empirical observations of long-term residents therefore represent a valuable contribution to the debate. This is particularly evident in New York City, where so-called food deserts are common, and longtime residents now find they can access fresh and healthy food without leaving their communities.

4. Gentrifiers are white. This myth has been fueled by high-profile media coverage of selected gentrified neighborhoods in 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). While it is true that some gentrification projects have been led by white entrepreneurs — reinforcing this stereotype — gentrification is in reality a new kind of "melting pot" characterized by numerous minority actors, including middle-class African Americans, Asians, and Latinos. Research by Freeman indicates that gentrified neighborhoods are actually more diverse than their non-gentrified counterparts. There are also subtler reasons why this myth persists: new minority residents are less visible than new white residents and are typically not regarded as "gentrifiers" even when they are.

Although there are other misconceptions that muddy the debate over gentrification's pros and cons, the four myths above are among the most common in the American public consciousness. Most Americans have encountered these views in the mainstream press, and absent any other information it is little wonder they tend to prevail. The definition of gentrification used in any given context therefore plays a key role in shaping research results and corresponding public perceptions (Bentacur).

In sum, proponents of gentrification emphasize how it reduces the concentration of poverty and reverses many of its associated harms: 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 highlight how housing becomes less affordable, poor and longtime residents become vulnerable to displacement (Lyons 1996; Robinson 1995), and established neighborhood identities change (Brown-Saracino 2004). It is important to note, however, that even some of gentrification's positive effects can have negative impacts — most especially for longtime homeowners who find their property taxes and cost of living rising as a direct result of improvements to their communities. 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 is inaccurate for at least two reasons: (1) many regions have policies such as property tax freezes to protect long-term homeowners from unaffordable tax burdens, 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 this argument, it is difficult to convince homeowners who have experienced gentrification's negative effects firsthand — an inevitability that has exacerbated the heated debate over how gentrification should be defined and evaluated.

Conclusion: Reframing the Gentrification Debate

In the final analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that gentrification is a natural phenomenon for a growing city and reflects 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 it raises. As a result, gentrification 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 to consider avoiding the term altogether in favor of language that more accurately reflects what is taking place in a given neighborhood. Ultimately, 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. As long as the term remains undefined or imprecisely used, it will continue to inflame rather than illuminate the debate over how best to revitalize America's cities.