Both readings this week talked about the long-standing mixed sentiments towards Gentrification. When analyzing Gentrifying neighborhoods, I do agree that it is complex to evaluate if it is a blessing or curse. Perhaps it is neither good nor bad. Gentrification can have both positive and negative effects on neighborhoods. In light of this, is it worth it to have our neighborhoods transform, or better yet — is it necessary?

Some of the negative effects of gentrification include the displacement of its long-term residents, uprooting the neighborhood’s shared history and identity, and making the cost of living there unsustainable for some. It breaks down the community and has the effect of making the place no longer feel like home to its older residents.

Yet gentrification also brings along many positive aspects, like bringing financial well-being to homeowners, increasing the range of amenities and services for communities originally lacking these, and bringing dire improvements to deteriorating conditions. Thinking back to last week’s discussion on Peter Salins’ article, I think that neighborhoods that transform and become more upscale may be good for our housing conditions in the long-term, because it ensures that neighborhoods that are abandoned or wrought with disinvestment, end up becoming renewed. There is certainly an element of vitality that comes with gentrification, which may be healthy for us in the long-run.

While I am still unsure if gentrification brings more good than harm, the way I see it is this: gentrification is generally more harmful in the short-term because of displacement, but beneficial in the long-term because it revitalizes our neighborhoods by allowing constant improvement.