The fifth chapter of Freeman’s book, entitled “Neighborhood Effects in a Changing ‘Hood,” goes through the many changes caused by gentrification. Honestly, I’ve only ever heard of gentrification in a negative way, and I never thought that it could be used to pull a failing neighborhood back from the edge of complete destruction. In that case, gentrification is a wonderful thing. However, I’m not sure that it’s smart to wait until the very end to take action. Maybe gentrification is better than I thought because it’s saving neighborhoods on the verge of failure before the real descent even starts. Perhaps we just don’t understand the big picture when our communities are being gentrified.
As many of the other readings we’ve done this semester have mentioned, this chapter says that altering neighborhoods requires mixing people of different incomes. At this point, I still can’t imagine that ever working out. I’m not sure if I’m thinking of the difference in income as drastic when it’s actually not, but I just don’t think these two categories of people would be comfortable together. Income dictates your lifestyle, so I don’t know how differing ones can coexist in such close proximity.
Even so, it seems that I am the only one who feels that way because Freeman goes on to discuss whether or not affluent neighbors are beneficial. With gentrification come new people, often with a higher income. Some people argue that these residents will effectively push out the original ones, while others say that they will instead push them to try to improve. I personally don’t see how that is possible. Having a horde of people, who are mostly better off than you, entering your neighborhood doesn’t seem very encouraging. If anything, it would be embarrassing and could possibly cause a rift in the community. Freeman recounts a conversation with some residents of a gentrified neighborhood, which essentially reveals that there is little to no social interaction between old and new tenants. Even if it does make you want to be better, that doesn’t mean you have the resources to do so either. There is a reason as to why you were living in what was a low-income neighborhood to begin with, so it might not be possible to advance in that aspect.
Later on in the chapter, Freeman says that well-off neighbors can bring better amenities and services such as the police force. While this may be true, I can’t believe that it’s actually being used to support gentrification. This argument is a clear example of discrimination. Why should inhabitants of low-income neighborhoods be subject to less police assistance? The only thing that can come out of that is increased crime. As mentioned in the chapter, concentrated poverty only leads to worse circumstances, so keeping the police out can’t possibly be a good idea. Doing so, and based on income of all things, is just unfair and wrong.
The chapter ends with a vague outlook for the future of gentrification. Freeman says that there are both pros and cons depending on the situation. This leads me to wonder how anyone can decide when gentrification should happen. How will anyone know if the benefits will outweigh the harms? Who gets to decide this, and what information will they use to do so? The only solution I can think of is to do a series of trial and error gentrification experiments until some sort of pattern can be discerned. And while that could be amazing, it could also be detrimental and we’d have no way of knowing until all is said and done.
