Spring 2018: Shaping the Future of New York City

      What is gentrification? Through the discussion of the many factors that result in and from “gentrification,” the term has become redundant and meaningless. Before any widespread discussion of the public policy needed to combat the negative effects (if there are any) of gentrification, there must be an understanding of what we are up against here. In her TED talk, Stacey Sutton ultimately defines gentrification as the processes by which people of higher socioeconomic class move into lower-income neighborhoods that have been historically disinvested by private and public sectors. Gentrification is NOT revitalization; it is unfair for pro-gentrification writers to substitute the two as neighborhood improvement may result from gentrification, but like displacement, is not the true meaning. Gentrification may lead to revitalization, but may also lead to devitalization. In his article, “Does Gentrification Harm the Poor?” Vigdor states that the term gentrification is loosely defined depending on the context (135). I have found that when brought up, the term “gentrification” always refers to a cluster of effects and symptoms, but never a cohesive universal phenomenon. While some authors might refer to the private investment in neighborhoods, others might define it as the influx of higher socioeconomic residents into a neighborhood of lower social class (Vigdor 125). And unfortunately, this lack of clarity has only fueled the multi-generational debate of the morality of gentrification: good or bad?

Continue reading “Gentrification: Its Definition and Connection to Capitalism”

Although at first glance, gentrification in our context may appear as a clearly negative term for the ways in which people of lower income are affected by changes in their community, Stabrowski, Newman and Wily, and Vigdor argue otherwise in their respective pieces. Gentrification does not always equate to displacement, and displacement does not involve solely a spatial movement, Stabrowski emphasizes in New-Build Gentrification and the Everyday Displacement of Polish Immigrant Tenants in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Everyday displacement manifests in the forms of prohibition by landlords, appropriations within the community, and insecurities generated by the changing neighborhood. This becomes detrimental to populations of ethnic enclaves, who even though are not necessarily pushed out of their neighborhoods, suffer in neglected living spaces and are mentally affected by the loss of sociocultural connections within their neighborhood. Vigdor, in Does Gentrification Harm the Poor? seems to understand this perspective; however, he elicits the complications in determining the amount of damage actually being done. The government has considered gentrification in a positive light when it has brought about the desired revitalization of a “run-down” area. Yet, upon backlash and quantitative studies, officials have retraced their steps to inspect the effects of this “revitalization” on lower income populations.

Continue reading “Mapping Preventative Measures for Gentrification”

When googling “gentrification and displacement” the first article to show up cites studies which demonstrate the complicated link between gentrification and displacement.  These include studies that show that income gains do not significantly predict household exit rates, that only 6 to 10 percent of moves in New York City is due to displacement, that poverty levels can decrease dramatically without gentrification, and that gentrification can lead to higher racial, income, and educational diversity.  It also includes studies that demonstrate that 23% of residents in 5 major cities were displaced due to eviction, rent increases, or the selling of the house they rented, and that the poorest people in gentrifying neighborhoods are stuck there because moving is too costly (Florida). This article might seem somewhat biased due to the larger amount of cited studies that mitigate the negative aspects of gentrification, and I would argue that this is true since the author of this article is Richard Florida, who is an urbanist who gets paid by cities to turn their land into hubs for the creative class, which inherently gentrifies these cities.
Continue reading “Gentrification and Displacement”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or2w0-lyKk8

(The focus of my post consists of  the first 5 minutes of the video above and is analyzed using the old scheduled readings as well as the updated scheduled readings)

The Atlantic Yards Porject, later renamed the Pacific Park project, was a project proposed by  Bruce Ratner to build Barclay’s Center in the neighborhood of Fort Greene, Brooklyn.  When Bruce Ratner was asked why Brooklyn was his choice of relocation of the Nets and the creation of the Stadium, his answer was everything but the way developers can exploit a neighborhood divided by race and class.  Instead, as stated in Julie Sze’s, “Sports and Environmental Justice: “Games” of Race, Place, Nostalgia, and Power in Neoliberal New York City”, developers played upon the desolation of Brooklyn after the relocation of the Brooklyn Dodgers and promised to bring back the spirit of Brooklyn using the Brooklyn Nets (Sze, 118).  In the interview Ratner also goes on to say that Brooklyn had the “bones” of a great city, meaning strong infrastructure, access to transportation and beautifully preserved residential areas.  These pitches, for development in Fort Greene, would  normally come as bad news for the underprivileged and lower class individuals living in the area yet accordign to Sze, the people in opposition to the development were often criticized for being upper class and elitist in their views.  However, the consequent gentrification due to large-scale projects, such as Atlantic Yards, creates displacement of underprivileged people and outcomes far from what is promised by developers.  Continue reading “Atlantic Yards: Why Brooklyn?”

In the three works “New-Build Gentrification and the Everyday Displacement of Polish Immigrant Tenants in Greenpoint, Brooklyn” by Filip Stabrowski, “The Right to Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to Displacement in New York City” by Kathe Newman and Elvin K. Wyly, and “Does Gentrification Harm the Poor?” by Jacob L. Vigdor, Douglas S. Masset, and Alice M. Rivlin, all authors examine the consequences of gentrification upon those of lower-income. Many people visualize gentrification as simply the physical displacement of individuals, families, and communities from their previously-occupied land. However, Stabrowski explains that there are numerous other factors of displacement that contribute to the bigger picture, such as economic, community, and resource displacement (798). By interpreting gentrification as the concept of changing experiences and dynamics of a community, it is easier to digest that it is possible for dislocation to occur whilst remaining on the same property. Conversely, physical dislocation may occur without the feeling of alienation stemming from a shifting neighborhood (Stabrowski). Stabrowski focuses his analysis on the transformation of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, which has rapidly gentrified in recent years.

Continue reading “Greenpoint’s Housing Landscape Before and After Gentrification”

In Naved Sheikh’s Community Benefits Agreements: Can Private Contracts Replace Public Responsibility, he discusses community benefits agreements or CBAs. Private developers began to work on public developments in the 1970s when the federal government and state government began to stop providing funding to cities for development. In CBAs are collaborations between the public and private developers. this type of collaboration, a private developer takes into account the public’s wishes in development projects such as establishing affordable housing and preferential hiring for residents. The initiative put forth by CBAs has worked in Los Angeles, California. In Los Angeles, a CBA was established that reached an agreement with developers attempting to create a Staples Center II. In the 18-page agreement, the developers established community benefits such as parks, parking permits, and affordable housing. In exchange, community residents supported the developers’ initiatives.

Continue reading “CBAs: A Voice for the People or a Tool for Developers?”

The general public knows that residential displacement is the biggest and most negative impact of growing levels of gentrification in major cities. What is unknown, and what is commonly misconceived, is the extent to how great the effect of gentrification is on displacement among the poor. Stabrowski, Newman, Wily, and Vigdor all attempt to answer this question, with the understanding that it is very difficult to measure indirect displacement as a result of gentrification. They have all concluded that statistically, only about 1.3% of family displacement has been directly due to gentrification (according to a study conducted by urban planner Lance Freeman). Their opinions diverge, however, when taking a step further to study how big a part gentrification plays in indirect displacement—that is, how income, community value, and a sense of belonging leads people to leave their homes for a poorer neighborhood. Richard Florida’s article, “Gentrification Has Virtually No Effect on Homeowners,” adds on to this discussion by reviewing a new disparity that many urban theorists don’t consider—the effect of gentrification on displacement of renters vs. displacement of homeowners.

Continue reading “Gentrification Has Virtually No Effect on Homeowners”

In the articles, “New-Build Gentrification and the Everyday Displacement of Polish Immigrant Tenants in Greenpoint, Brooklyn,” by Filip Stabrowski, “The Right to Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to Displacement in New York City,” by Kathe Newman and Elvin K. Wyly and “Does Gentrification Harm the Poor?,” by Jacob L. Vigdor, the authors share a central theme of attempting to understand the notion of displacement of low-income people due to gentrification in their neighborhoods.  Stabrowski, Newman, and Wyly argue that displacement occurs in neighborhoods that have undergone development and rezoning, forcing out long-term residents and leaving others desolate. Stabrowski narrates the story of gentrification that occurred Greenpoint where Polish immigrants, who immigrated during the twentieth century, were unable to stay in the neighborhood after the rezoning and construction of the Waterfront in 2005. These immigrants had to leave their enclave and well-established community due to poor housing conditions, rent overcharge, refusal to renew their leases, the “roommate law,” and verbal harassment. Stabrowski states the events that occurred are a form of “everyday displacement,” which is “the lived experience of ongoing loss- of the security, agency, and freedom to ‘make place'” (Stabrowksi, 796). He describes this to be the immigrants’ exclusion from a neighborhood they feel entitled to. Similarly, Newman and Wyly wanted a way to quantify this problem, but they acknowledge that it was fairly difficult to find people that were displaced specifically for reasons that stem from gentrification. However, their analysis followed residents that had relocated for three specific reasons,  expensive residence/difficulty paying rent, landlord harassment, or private action. They were able to confirm that this displacement occurs at a high enough value to be measured as significant. They followed the displacers from Manhattan to the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens, rarely ever in the other direction. They also argue that this gentrification entices the poorer residents just as much as it does to outsiders and the benefits would be tremendous if these residents could remain the neighborhood without the additional stress.

Continue reading “Displacement Alert Project Map”