While some scholars argue that manufacturing was unnecessary and bound to be displaced, they often overlook the likelihood of manufacturing being forced out of Williamsburg. Winifred Curran discusses the sad tale of manufacturing in Williamsburg in the two readings assigned. In “‘From the Frying Pan to the Oven’: Gentrification and the Experience of Industrial Displacement in Williamsburg, Brooklyn,” Curran explains how Williamsburg earned a reputation for having an abundance of jobs in breweries, oil refineries, garment industries etc. Soon enough, the easy access to Manhattan, the waterfront location and the industrial architecture attracted other folks, namely artists, to the neighborhood.
Curran describes the unfortunate reality that began with the illegal conversion of industrial buildings to residential ones. Perhaps it is the landlords of industrial property that we should give a share of the blame: they allowed artists to sign commercial leases so that they (the landlords) could pretend they had no knowledge of residential users occupying the space. Then, after the artists had renovated these spaces to be habitable and when the real estate market became more competitive (including the residential market for industrial space), these artists may be evicted as landlords seek to make the process legal through a zoning change. The properties become even more profitable and this is probably part of the reason why Williamsburg today is riddled with residential buildings, from studio apartments to lofts.
When industry was no longer at its peak, when residential areas became more desirable, we see multiple narratives converge. Industry could no longer afford to be where it was and many were displaced–those that remained in Williamsburg were pushed to the outskirts. Previous authors mention how industry didn’t have to be displaced, and it might have even been prevented, if the city believed industry belonged in Williamsburg and made an effort to stop it. Many businesses moved to other boroughs, and some of the larger industries moved to New Jersey, where they had relocation incentives.
Curran is also of the opinion that industry could have stayed in Williamsburg. Within the piece,”In Defense of Old Industrial Spaces: Manufacturing, Creativity and Innovation in Williamsburg, Brooklyn,” Curran argues that the very urbanity of industry in Brooklyn makes business feasible and successful. Businesses, social networks, market developments and population shifts form a stew that enhances an urban location and gives it its history. That history and that urbanity is precisely what allows industrial districts to become “sticky places.” They can now capture capital and labor and keep them in the locality. Curran goes on to say that flexible local labor markets, local cultural identities and shared industrial expertise combine to create a spatial fix. When we hear about the creative class and the “gritty” culture of Williamsburg, we ignore the industry that was instrumental in attracting residents in the first place.
If we can return now, briefly. to the idea that industry could have stayed, it becomes something of a forbidden camaraderie. Industry and Williamsburg may have grown together but it appears the tide of the real estate market, the desire for capital and the attractive culture of the underground parties (among other things) deluged that friendship. It’s almost reminiscent of The Hunger Games, in which only one contestant can make it to the end of the battle royal. Friendship and romance have no place in that arena. In the end, it appears that, in a bout for survival, Williamsburg moved on without its old friend friend, Industry.
Questions to consider:
- Is Curran overstating how desirable industry is? If not, then why didn’t the city prevent it from being displaced?
- Williamsburg is often referenced as the model of the generic gentrified neighborhood, however, the industry in the neighborhood makes it unique. Would Williamsburg have been the same if the industrial presence wasn’t as significant? Would immigrants and migrants have flocked there for jobs?
- What would Jane Jacobs say about the idea of “sticky places” and their relevance to city?
