The Rise of Brooklyn, What’s Wrong and What’s Right

The word “gentrification” brings, to the typical New Yorker, an image of evil—where lower and working class residents are pushed out of their homes by the upper class, and when the culture and community of each neighborhood gradually loses its identify. Alan Ehrenhalt’s NYTimes article, “The Rise of Brooklyn, What’s Wrong and What’s Right” localizes the effect of gentrification to Brooklyn, and discusses the glossed-over aspects of the process by referring to an assessment done by Kay S. Hymowitz.

From a general point of view, gentrification in Brooklyn is what changed it from a “left-for-dead city marinated in more than a century of industrial soot” to what it is today. What people overlook, in their hatred for anything that resembles gentrification, is that it admittedly rid the borough of its high crime and unemployment rates. In the city government’s attempt to fix what were the pressing problems of the time, they catalyzed a process that pushed out the poorer residents in favor of NYC’s wealthy. Some neighborhoods today remain untouched by gentrification (Brownsville, Canarsie, and East New York among others)—but these are the neighborhoods with the highest crime rates. Although gentrification is devastating to the poorer residents of New York, it remains the most effect solution to creating safer neighborhoods. Another important point made by Hymowitz is that the communities formed in these newly gentrified Brooklyn neighborhoods aren’t created based on people who live close to each other—but rather on people who share the same class and interests. Race doesn’t play a factor in this discrimination anymore, as wealthy white residents form relationships with well-educated black residents.

This article points out the harsh truths people don’t wish to admit—gentrification appears as a solution to crime-ridden neighborhoods, and are pushed as fast as possible to create a place where people can live in as well as well as a place that can produce “social, cultural, and economic capital” (38). The problem here is that once a neighborhood becomes a better and more appealing place to live in, the cost of living there goes up to the point where only a small percentage of New Yorkers can actually afford it. Those who live there are pushed out to the ungentrified surrounding neighborhoods—until those neighborhoods become gentrified as well. An example of this occurred in the beginning stages of Brooklyn’s gentrification. Williamsburg was Brooklyn’s beginning, and its industrial aesthetic appealed to many of the artists who originated from Lower Manhattan but were pushed out (due to gentrification, of course). As Williamsburg grew in popularity, it’s original residents were pushed out to surrounding neighborhoods—the dangerous “Black Brooklyn,” or Bed-Stuy (37). Once Williamsburg became too expensive for some of its upper-class residents, they turned to Bed-Stuy for a new home—and the cycle continues. The point here is that although gentrification is a vicious process that harms the lives of many lower-class residents of New York, it appears to be a necessary evil. It’s only a matter of time before Brownsville and Canarsie become neighborhoods that are too expensive to live in.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.