Both readings for our class regarding gentrification took a very different approach than most had leading up to today. I noticed that these pieces were much more reliant on in depth interviews and stories from individuals who have had a personal relation to the subject matter. This is opposed to the either historical approach for the older topics, and the fact and statistic based articles we’ve been seeing a lot of. I appreciated this in both readings.
One component of Freeman’s chapter of “There Goes the ‘Hood’” was the instances where gentrification was seen as a positive change in the lives of the minorities inhabiting those neighborhoods. I enjoyed hearing about when they acknowledged the presence of new amenities that were never available nearby, or when they felt more safe in their area in general.
The New York Times article by Ronda Kaysen, “Priced our of a Childhood Home” discussed the transformations neighborhoods underwent due to an increased investment within them, accompanied by gentrification. I found these accounts to directly oppose the main concern of Peter D. Salins’ piece last week. Salins’ was concerned that the rent regulated housing, and neighborhoods surrounding it wouldn’t be updated and improved due to a lack of interest from owners and investors. Gentrification is described in our reading as a large incentive to landlords, so I guess it depends on the specific situation one’s in, in regards to benefits reaped.