The survival of urban city regions depends on the niche they carry; the transportation, the food, the culture. However, what happens when these city areas become the target of urban developers seeking to install new methods of capital, labor, and housing in areas that contained old manufacturing but are deemed as ‘outdated’? When a given region’s rent and income causes a gap big enough to attract urban developers, we get the problem of urban developers forcing their way into developed city lives, to create new ‘modern’ areas of dwellings. Arguably, we can see a positive effect from development: revamped neighborhoods, lower crime rates, greater diversity of individuals. But, the main problem becomes, the mix of high and low income, high and low rent, the wealthy and the poorer are not supported by these urban developers. What therefore becomes of this, displacement and loss of culture of a region- this is the gentrification that we see present since the urban development programs brought about in the 60s. Winifred Curran’s In Defense of Old Industrial Spaces, argues that the ‘creative class’ which replaces the jobs and old manufacturing of gentrified areas are seen as creative and innovative individuals looking to keep the ‘authenticity’ of a region all the while creating a more modern environment; but, is replacing all of which was there necessary? Curran speaks of what she coins as ‘sticky places’ which attract and keep capital and labor, inner cities however, no longer maintain the infrastructural support of the past, and gentrification in some sense helps to keep niche markets that are essential to certain inner cities attractive. However, the manufacturers are simply attracted to the capital gain, to the amenities and he profit they can bring. The urban experience of relations of the consumers and the job market around them are not considered. In her case study of Williamsburg, she states while she did find an amalgam of businesses who suffered at the hands of displacement, she was surprised to find “business … remarkable adaptability, creativity and resistance …a combination of force of will, business and personal networks, flexibility and a need for a New York City location”(Curran 875.) Here we can see that small-scale operations are also ‘flexible’ and have quite a bit of expertise as compared to the industrial counterparts which seek to overtake them. So, small businesses can survive even through the face of adversity brought by these urban developers, however the problem that remains is for how long. These developers, do not see the diversity and ability of these businesses to keep the original color of the city all the while bringing in capital gain, and seek to simply push them out and make a venue for another chain restaurant or luxury goods store.
The song “My City Was Gone” by The Pretenders, explains speaks about going back to one’s home and realizing that “home” is gone. The song’s main location is Akron, Ohio where redevelopment takes the place of many cultural landmarks, such as the downtown regions and the familiar train stations. Instead all that stands now are parking lots and shopping malls. The “pretty countryside” that the singer speaks of has been “paved down the middle by a government that has no pride.” This line I find to be the most profound “a government that has no pride” seems to speak volumes about the ideas of urban redevelopment and gentrification that seeks to ‘modernize’ and ‘make better’, without keeping what can survive, rather they would bulldoze all of the old to replace with the new. Is that necessary? I am not so sure, and neither is Curran, but, such is the reality of redevelopment in our cities today.
Questions:
- Is Curran right, can small businesses with tenacity survive alongside the big chains, and is this a solution to the gentrification problem- to simply have a mix of the old and new, both of which can survive?
- Is all that is old, outdated or inflexible?
- Referring to the song linked above, can it be said that the “pretty countryside” has been paved away by a “government that has no pride;” does the government have pride in cultural landmarks or is it just a game of monopoly?
