I saw this NY1 article shared by many of my Facebook friends and all of them were outspoken with rage, as they should be. As if taking over most of New York City wasn’t enough, modern developers and real estate agents came up with a plan to rename the area from 110th to 125th Streets as “SoHa”, or South Harlem to make it sound as trendy as SoHo. This, in my opinion, is absolutely ridiculous. Even if gentrification were to spread into Harlem, Harlem should keep its name. We should have learned back in 1492 when Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue that changing the identity of a place is just wrong. Moving people out of their homes and destroying the culture of a neighborhood just to increase the capital of a land is wrong. Sprinkling a coffee shop or two in an area and then immediately claiming it is a pretty offensive slap in the face. The strong historic African-American culture is still there, so what is the point of ignoring it and saying “sorry this is SoHa now, screw your feelings”. Harlem has so much history behind it, and to just strip the neighborhood of that to make it sound trendy in order to attract more gentrifiers is really disgusting and selfish.

http://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2017/05/24/harlem-soha-residents-unhappy-name-change-push.html

I recently stumbled upon this editorial on The New York Times, “Confronting Segregation in New York City School.” After doing hours of research on socioeconomic segregation in public schools for our seminar paper, I was immediately drawn to this article. During our presentation, socioeconomic segregation was presented as a result of gentrification. The reality is, however, that low income students have been at a disadvantage for decades as a result of the political system in our country. This goes beyond gentrification and leads back to redlining, mass incarceration, faulty justice system, segregation etc. Schools with a high percentage of low income students have proven to have lower test scores and graduation rates than integrated schools. These schools are also less likely to have qualified teachers and resources compared to more affluent schools. Desegregating schools should not be done for the sole purpose of promoting diversity, but rather to promote equity in the education system.

When asked about this issue, Mayor de Blasio responded “We cannot change the basic reality of housing in New York City.” We cannot have a dismissive attitude when communities of color are constantly being denied the right to a proper education. The article points out that segregation in schooling goes beyond housing and is a result of decades old educational policies that ensure low income students remain at a disadvantage. As a New Yorker, I used to be very proud of the fact that we are a part of one of the most diverse cities in the nation. Although I am still proud to be from New York, we have a long way to go before patting ourselves on the back for being a diverse city. It is extremely unfitting for a city like our own, known for being the “Melting Pot” or “Tossed Salad” to have “one of the most deeply segregated school systems in the nation.”

Reference:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/realestate/hudson-yards-meet-your-new-neighbor-manhattan-west.html?_r=0

Manhattan West is a new emerging set of towers that rivals Hudson Yards in luxury and scale. The project is located on 9th Av between West 31st and 33rd. The chairman of Brookfield Property Partners, the company behind the project, said that it’s like “creating a new neighborhood.” This hints at what Sharon Zukin discusses in Naked City. She talks about the quest for “authenticity” in neighborhoods. Companies like Brookfield want to create manufactured, corporatized neighborhoods and sell them as authentic lifestyle experiences, not simply places to live.

While looking for articles related to gentrification in Williamsburg, I found an article from a former MHC seminar syllabus in my results, and I knew I had to check it out. I also noticed that some of the readings for this week were by the same author, Winnifred Curran. Curran’s article, “Gentrification and the nature of work: exploring the links in Williamsburg, Brooklyn,” is about how gentrification in Williamsburg was/ is causing obsolescence of blue-collar workers and small businesses. She argues that manufacturing is still an important part of Brooklyn’s economy, and that by replacing small businesses/industrial spaces with new residential areas, we are “encouraging industrial displacement” which leads to the break-down of blue-collar work (Curran, Environment and Planning A 2004, volume 36, 1243).

Much like Curran’s article that we read for class, “In Defense of Old Industrial Spaces: Manufacturing, Creativity and Innovation in Williamsburg, Brooklyn,” the article about the “nature of work” highlights the importance of industrial spaces for Williamsburg locals and workers. However, I find that her article about the “nature of work” fits into a more scientific mindset, which fascinates me. At first glance, her paper looks like a science research paper with figures and a methods section. But, as you read the details, you begin to analyze the social issue of gentrification with a scientific mindset as well (which is why I think sociology is super cool). Curran helps to separate the emotional ties to gentrification that some mainstream media outlets have (either pro or against gentrification) from the facts derived from her collected data. By analyzing gentrification in Williamsburg with a sociological and scientific point of view, Curran is able to tell us that gentrification is hurting blue-collar workers and that industrial spaces are still needed in Brooklyn, whether we like it or not.

Curran, Winnifred. “Gentrification and the nature of work: exploring the links in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.” Environment and Planning A 2004, volume 36, pages 1243 – 1258. Click here for the article