Doubled-Edged Sword (noun): Something that has or can have both favorable and unfavorable consequences.
After reading the articles by Winifred Curran, the phrase Double-Edged Sword immediately came to mind. The effects of gentrification on industrial displacement is more complicated than at first glance. Like most issues, there are multiple sides and perspectives on the effects and consequences of gentrification and the move away from manufacturing in the cities.
Curran’s “From the Frying Pan to the Oven” quoted the manager of a winery. The manager, in regards to Williamsburg, said, “Eventually, all of this area will be residential. It’s part of a natural progression. First, you had a rundown commercial area. Then, we help make the area a more vibrant commercial area. Then it becomes residential.” The way that he described this process as being a natural one brought to mind a chart that all students see at one point in their science classes. This is the food web.
This one is that of the Chesapeake Bay Waterbird Food Web. Each animal plays a different roll, eating and being eaten. With food webs, if the amount of one animal or bird in the web changes, it has a ripple effect not only on those that directly relate to it but on the entire web. For example, if there are less Sea Ducks than usual, then there will be an increase in the amount of Bivalves which will eat more of the Herbivorous Ducks and so those ducks will decrease in amount and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation will increase because there are less ducks to eat them. Additionally, there will be more Bald Eagles without food and so they may decrease or they will begin eating more Large Piscivorous Fish which will then have an effect on that line of food and it continues till the change in one duck effects every other being in the web. The thing with the food web is that while it is a part of nature, often, the first change that effects everything else is due to humans. Humans change something in nature and the ripple occurs. So too with the natural progression of gentrification. Whether negative or positive, the consequences are felt and are most certainly not isolated. As Curran writes, “the loss of one company affects suppliers, customers, workers and the businesses they patronise…The loss of small manufacturers threatens the ability of other businesses to remain in business.”
The actions that we take, every step we make, effects change. Whether or not the consequence matters does not change the fact that something occurs. In our case, the effects of gentrification, whether natural, manmade, or a combination of both, are far beyond the displacement of a store or an industry. It changes the authenticity, the environment, and the character of a neighborhood, maybe for the good or maybe for the bad. To some, gentrification is driving businesses away while to others, “gentrification creates a demand for products that local manufactures can supply” (Curran). On both ends of this double-edged sword movement is happening.
- Some businesses survive by changing their businesses to fit the residents of their city. Is this ability to continue to stay in business while changing the store positive? Why or why not?
- One of the arguments for the upside of gentrification is the decrease in crime in a neighborhood. How much of an effect did the crime of the neighborhood have on the formation and character of the city? Does this lack of crime change the character of the neighborhood in a positive or negative way?
- Is looking at gentrification as a “natural progression” giving up or is it a positive progression? Is anything really natural or are there forces that are set into place that makes something appear natural while hiding the hands that push it?
