Many people view gentrification as a neighborhood upgrading process that at the very least will make an area safer. As wealthy neighborhood newcomers swarm an area and new upscale shops pop up, many believe a decline in crime is natural and inevitable. However, evidence from real cases of gentrification has shown the correlation between gentrification and crime to be hazy. In many cases, crime has decreased along with gentrification; although, in other cases the opposite has occurred. Manhattan’s Lower East Side provides an interesting case study in the relation between gentrification and crime because of its unique history of two distinguishable waves of gentrification in addition to its crime-driven notoriety. The neighbourhood is significantly safer today than it was in the past as it undergoes its most recent wave of gentrification. However, gentrification during the 1980s did not reduce crime and some have pointed to the Tompkins Square Riot as a sign of gentrification induced crime. Nevertheless, it is difficult to attest crime and unrest directly to gentrification. The context of the Lower East Side, and other gentrifying neighborhoods, proves gentrification to be a more ambiguous predictor of crime than one may assume, though on the whole lower crime rates do tend to accompany gentrification of a neighbourhood.
- The Lower East Side (1960s-1970s)
- Contextualize the change that the neighborhood would witness from the 1960s and on.
- Crime in the 60s and 70s.
- Several newspaper articles (mostly New York Times) describing the crime within the area, giving specific examples, and often the police reaction.
- Including: heroin epidemic, murders, police killings and crime.
- Although no specific and concrete statistics are available from this time period, yet the general environment of the area is noticeable in the tone of the newspaper articles and primary sources who we interviewed for our documentary.
- This background of the LES lays the foundation to properly compare the change that has taken place within the Lower East Side over the past few decades.
- The Lower East Side (1980/90s)
- First wave of gentrification
- The art phenomena sparked a mass market effect, which progressed the wave of gentrification and the transfer of neighborhood property to real estate developers to ensure increased capital.
- Tompkins Square Park Riot
- The riot was largely a result of unrest brought about by gentrification as wealthier newcomers were upset with the condition of the park.
- Inhabitants of the park were frustrated with the wave of gentrification and commercialization of the Lower East Side. Protestors thus began demonstrations which sparked police brutality.
- NYPD statistics regarding the 7th precinct give information comparing 1980s and current day crime rates.
- First wave of gentrification
- The Lower East Side (2000-present)
- A pacified/neutered neighborhood in a second wave of gentrification
- Crime rates are way down.
- The Lower East presents a case in which gentrification had indeterminate effects on crime.
- Scholarly research :
- “Does gentrification affect crime rates?” Scott C. McDonald
- Gentrification may lead to an eventual decline in crime, but it may only be temporary
- “More Coffee, Less Crime? The Relationship between Gentrification and Neighborhood Crime Rates in Chicago, 1991 to 2005,” Andrew V. Papachristos writes about gentrification’s effect on crime. Though his research is in Chicago, it provides a format for our study in NYC.
- Papachristos argues against the idea that gentrification reduces crime and cites scholars who contest that in some cases gentrification actually increases crime.
- “Does gentrification affect crime rates?” Scott C. McDonald
- Williamsburg
- Before the first recognizable wave of gentrification, Williamsburg was home to various, blue colored ethnicities including Italians, Polish, Hispanics, and Jewish communities.
- As early as the 1970s, a Brooklyn art movement began and established another reputable art hub which brought with it a new wave of “gentrifiers.”
- In recent years, Williamsburg has been reshaped by not only the “gentrifiers” but the developer rezoning of the neighborhood.
- In 2005, the City Planning Commission approved rezoning efforts to build large-scale waterfront complexes.
- In the late 1970s, Williamsburg was notorious for its dangerous streets, looting, and arson.
- NYPD statistics regarding the 90th precinct gives information comparing 1980s and present day crime rate.
- Before the first recognizable wave of gentrification, Williamsburg was home to various, blue colored ethnicities including Italians, Polish, Hispanics, and Jewish communities.
- Bushwick
- During the 1970s and 1980s, Bushwick was plagued by crime (as shown by the NYPD’s crime statistics and general anecdotal evidence, such as the 1977 blackout)
- Crime has decreased significantly since then (NYPD statistics), though the area still is relatively “gritty” (NYT article: the neighbourhood has gained amenities – an indicator of gentrification, but remains somewhat rough)
- In the past few years, Bushwick has begun to gentrify as people are pushed out of Williamsburg and other areas where rent has become to high.
- It will be interesting to see what effect this gentrification has on crime, but it is possible that the progress the neighborhood has made in reducing crime came before the gentrification.
- Park Slope
- Past
- Articles collected from the “parkslopeciviccouncil.org” describe the neighbourhood during this time, from primary sources who has seen the progression over time.
- Now
- The NYPD statistics regarding the 78 precinct give information comparing 1990’s crime rate to the present day crime rate.
- Also, other statistics such as current property value and average income will be included to note the change, and progression of the neighborhood.
- Crime
- Has this correlated with the gentrification of the neighborhood?
- What does the future entail – will this positive or negative change continue?
- Past
- Theorist hypotheses
- Develop a statement on crime and gentrification and relate it to the claims of theorists
-Chris Arroyo, Kristy Timms, & Roseann Weick
Hi you three,
This looks really good. I’m not even going to say anything about your introduction, because it sounds great to me. My primary suggestions has to do with the structure of the paper – how the ideas are laid out and organized. And even these suggestions are not earth-shaking, but I do think they might make a difference:
I suggest you might want to discuss the Lower East Side last. (i.e., after your comparison neighborhoods.) The reason for this is that I suspect that the most interesting points that you are going to make will pertain to the inconsistent evidence for the gentrification/crime correlation seen in the Lower East Side’s recent history. Other neighborhoods (Williamsburg?) might serve as stand-ins for a more straightforward, greater gentrification/lower crime story, but if the twist that you forecast in your thesis at the end is going to be evidenced by Lower East Side gentrification, then save this for last and end the paper on a strong note, with your own original ideas based on your own research.
On that note, I think it’s odd that you have scholarly research coming into the paper part way through (e.g. the coffeeshop/crime article) and at the end (the theorist hypotheses thing). Most social science articles devote a section (informally known as a “literature review”) toward the beginning of the paper (usually right after the intro) to summarizing previous research and important theories on the topic. They use this section to set up the question that they’re going to answer and establish its importance. In other words, the motive from the intro is usually reflected in this section, but dealt with in greater length and by citing other studies. You do not by any means have to follow this model, but the nice thing about it is it’s straightforward and poses no real risk of losing the reader.
Last thing: I’m not sure why you have the Lower East Side discussion in chronological order. My guess is the answer is some sort of mutant lovechild of Why Not? and What’s the Alternative? This is really hard to do, but you should strive to have your papers follow a rhetorically progressive structure. (Big pretentious words, sorry.) This means that where things fall in the paper should be dictated by the logic of the argument rather than by chronology (or the letters of the alphabet, or the colors of the rainbow, or whatever).
If I make a fake, made-up argument verbally it could go: Lots of important people think that gentrification leads to lower crime. The reason why they think this is because of X and Y. In the case of the Lower East Side, if we look at contemporary statistics against those of the 70s, they seem to support this argument. But for a while, in the 1980s, it’s possible that gentrification led to higher crime, for reasons K and Z.
Okay let’s pretend each sentence of that made-up argument was a paragraph. It’s not in chronological order – in fact, present-day evidence is mixed in with really old evidence, and both come in a paragraph (or section or whatever) that comes before the middle-aged evidence that chronologically came between new and old. Do you see what I mean? The structure was dictated by the rhetorical logic of the argument rather than chronology.
Okay, that’s a lot of stuff I just threw at you. Don’t feel like you have to follow all those suggestions. But think about them and maybe try them out a little before abandoning them. It’s hard at first but eventually you will learn to do this stuff naturally and might as well accelerate the learning curve by struggling with it now, especially since your introduction… c’est magnifique.
Mike