Gentrification has long been portrayed through a one-dimensional lens. It is the force that kills the cultural and socio-economic particularities of a city, giving rise to homogeneity. While the validity of this statement has been hotly debated, this larger discussion has failed to do much in addressing the issues at hand – one of which concerns the evolving economic landscape.
In her article “In Defense of Old Industrial Spaces: Manufacturing, Creativity and Innovation in Williamsburg, Brooklyn,” Winifred Curran argues that our societal definition of flexibility, innovation, creativity has changed to reflect, and perhaps justify, the expansion of a new “creative class” that undermines the existence of traditional forms of manufacturing. This shift in what we perceive to be the model economy has led to the enactment of urban policies that promote gentrification and erode outdated economic standards. In describing this new economy, Curran points to “sectors such as high-technology industry, neo-artisanal manufacturing, business and financial services and cultural products industries” which are “differentiated from the ‘massified’ structures of production and rigid labor markets that typified Fordism” (872). Going further, Curran explains that the clustering of these new industries allows for the easy exchange of human capital or creative talent; the clustering is not a result of the proximity to raw materials or transportation hubs that influenced the location Fordist industries.
Despite these critical differences in the nature of the old and the new economies, there are key aspects that can be seen in both. Curran says, “An urban location provides the infrastructure, markets, and labor necessary for production. Indeed, urban industrial districts have long served to provide the locational advantages now attributed to new industrial districts” (872). By examining the change and continuity over time of the economy of Williamsburg, Curran proves that small-scale manufacturing in the area has tremendously benefited the larger city by providing countless employment opportunities, as well as spurring migration. But this has been relatively overlooked by policymakers who have tended to advance legislation that promotes “neoliberal urbanism based on interurban competition, place marketing, property- and market-led development, gentrification and socio-spatial inequality” (882). Ultimately, this hurts small-scale businesses in the long run and leads to the degradation of the fundamental character of a city.
While we might never be able to reverse the process of gentrification, we can regulate the way in which it alters our economic landscape. We must strive to create policies that benefit all parties, not just the contemporary elite. Economic diversity that emphasizes the balance, the adaptability, and the sustainability of existing and emerging industries is critical for the success of a gentrifying city.
