In the article, “Building the Frontier Myth,” author Neil Smith discusses the concept of gentrification and how certain neighborhoods have developed over time. He describes how certain areas have evolved from run down and low income neighborhoods, occupied by working-class residents to affluent communities, dominated by high end fashion boutiques and upper-class citizens. Throughout the article, Smith compares the gentrification of New York City to the “Frontier Myth” or “Taming the Wild West” in order to represent the attitudes of the residents of New York City, as well as the “pioneers” who claim to have been the first settlers who started the transformation of these neighborhoods.

One thing that I found to be very interesting was the way the author described the transformation of the Lower East Side. During that time period, there were many people who were afraid of neighborhoods such as the Lower East Side. To them, it was an undiscovered territory marked by danger and the unknown. For example, in the article he provides a statement from a couple who moved to the Lower East Side, who compare themselves to “pioneers crossing the Rockies.” They believed that they were embarking on a journey, attempting to discover unchartered territories. They viewed themselves as visionaries or “urban pioneers. However, through gentrification, the Lower East Side has been transformed into a chic neighborhood, characterized by bars, restaurants and fashion boutiques. Rents are at their all time high and artists or small retailers are being replaced by high-end national tenants. Due to its increasing traffic and popularity it has replaced low income residents, with wealthy families.

Throughout the article, Smith compares many New York City neighborhoods, in particular Soho and the Lower East Side, to the Western frontier and the jungles of Africa. He explains that this transformation has occurred both in ideology and in the style of the fashion boutiques. In terms of ideology, he mentions that the gentrification of these neighborhoods can be compared to the discovery of the Wild West. He explains that he city is “oozing with optimism.” Areas that were viewed as run-down and low-income were being reinvigorated and replaced with up-beat middle-class neighborhoods. The working-class residents were kicked out or forced to move due to rising real estate prices, thereby transforming the neighborhood into one that was gentrified.

Furthermore, the frontier ideology also transformed the fashion and style of many of the high-end boutiques. Many stores in Soho were selling items such as Navajo rugs or terra-cotta pottery, things that characterized the Western frontier. One store even sold a bleached buffalo skull for $500. The city was taking on a new, rugged identity and it was exemplified throughout. New York City was also adopting an African jungle theme, to the point where many stores were organized to look like jungles. Ralph Lauren created a collection depicting the “Safari woman.” One point that Smith mentioned that I found extremely interesting was the fact that during that time, most New Yorkers couldn’t even fathom what was going on in Africa. It was an area that was underdeveloped, lacked capital and full of famine and war. However, people saw it as a remarkable, exotic fantasy and as an escape from the “gentrified city.”

At the end of the article Smith points a major fault of this frontier philosophy. In the myth the poor are seen as “uncivil” or savages. They are pictured as a group of people who don’t understand social norms and must be tamed and controlled by the civil, affluent and proper upper class. Although I believe that in some cases gentrification may prove to be great, by redeveloping and advancing certain areas, in some cases its consequences may outweigh its benefits. The number of people it displaces may outweigh the amount of good it produces. Therefore, I believe that we must look at each situation and neighborhood in its entirety in order to consider the possible effects that gentrification may have.

Gentrification is a highly controversial issue in urban planning and development. Revitalization of neighborhoods and their economies is contrasted with the uprooting of existing populations and the pricing out of small businesses to create a debate with valid arguments on both sides. Neil Smith’s “Building the Frontier Myth” makes the point that the WIld West myth has been co-opted by the media to characterize urban gentrification as the work of brave “pioneers,” so as to generate a favorable image of the practice among the public.

There is something to be said for the romanticization of Manifest Destiny in American history. Home buyers and business investors would certainly feel happier about being a part of the gentrification of a neighborhood if they could be convinced that they were following in the path of the great frontiersmen who “tamed” the West. I found the excerpt about Times Square to be very interesting.  In that case, the marketing strategy has obviously worked very well. Times Square is probably unrecognizable from what it was in the 80’s and it would be ridiculous to think that people would need any motivation to grab an opportunity to invest there.

One main concern that the author expresses is that equating gentrification to the settling of the West obliterates some fundamental differences between the two movements such as the geographical location and challenges, to name one example. He writes, “Frontier is as much a style as a place.” Urban “cowboys” buy into the myth and completely seize the opportunity to imitate the media-generated, idealized image of the Wild Wild West. Perhaps, in doing so, they show disrespect to the seriousness and magnitude of that time in history. 

Further, as society gets caught up in this exciting myth, real social issues that surround gentrification will be pushed to the side. Gentrification gives rise to a significant social conflict. When local businesses and long-time residents get priced out of their own neighborhoods, only to see the new incumbents being praised for revitalizing, even “saving” the neighborhood as it were, it is a problem. Obviously, to romanticize a policy that gives rise to such serious concerns is not appropriate.

From my personal experience with reading about gentrification, I don’t believe that the Wild West jargon is as prevalently used anymore. But  gentrification is still accorded a degree of superiority i.e., gentrification is seen as something that “improves” a neighborhood. That may be true from a certain perspective but I am not convinced that gentrification “improves” a neighborhood so much as it “replaces” it with a middle-class ideal.

In the reading “Building the Frontier Myth” Smith gives an overview of how certain neighborhoods had evolved from time to time. The reading talks about various example of NYC neighborhood, such as Lower East Side, SoHo, Ludlow Street and etc. This reading really surprised me. It shows me how gentrification has changed certain neighborhood physically as well as how it changed people’s attitude toward these neighborhoods.

Real estate people were using the phrase “The Taming of the Wild Wild West” to describe their project of building new condominium two blocks west of Times Square. They declared, “West 42nd Street has been tamed, domesticated and polished into the most exciting freshest, most energetic new neighborhood in all of New York.” Times Square has gone through many large transformations. From a neighborhood where people didn’t even want to go at night, to today the most glamorous area of the city. It caused the nearby property value to increase, and eventually there weren’t a lot of people who can afford to live there.

Another interesting part of the reading is about the gentrification process took place in SoHo. I had been to SoHo couple times, but I didn’t really like it. It has so many fashion boutiques and art galleries. It was interesting to know that SoHo has gone through gentrification, yet some of the surrounding neighborhoods still seem to be not affected by this process. I know Chinatown is near SoHo area, however, I am not sure if gentrification of SoHo has significant impacts in certain area of Chinatown’s property value or other nearby neighborhoods. Compare to many years ago, when SoHo first got famous, it might have increased the nearby property value.

This reading also talks about frontier, which is constantly changing. “The new urban frontier motif encodes not only the physical transformation of the built environment.“ Smith says that the changing of frontier does not occur only through the physical transformation. At the same time, through the process of gentrification, people’s attitude toward certain neighborhood also changes. Eventually people started to accept them, and want to live in the area where they didn’t wanted to live before.

Gentrification has happened in many part of New York City neighborhoods. As Smith mentioned in his chapter, areas include Lower East Side, Ludlow Street, SoHo, and etc. Gentrification was mostly a result of upper class or middle class buying a lower class area of the city, and renovates them to completely change their property value. Because of change in the property value these lower class people couldn’t afford to live there anymore; usually they were forced to move out. I think somehow, gentrification is good to certain neighborhoods because it may promote diversity. And gentrification also resulted in change of attitude toward certain neighborhoods of the city, which I think is a good thing for the city as a whole.

At first glance when I saw this weeks readings had to do with gentrification I thought they would be a bit more serious to an extent. However, Gentrification is barely mentioned, in fact in the beginning I don’t even believe they mentioned gentrification at all. But, they did describe it with the story presented. So honestly, as I was reading the chapter I was trying to figure out what each ‘random’ thing the author mentioned had to do with gentrification.

The first thing mentioned in the chapter is this concept of “Urban Pioneering” and this in fact was probably the only thing which right away struck me off as Gentrification. The story provided is about a couple which dared to move farther than the community they grew up in, which for them was Houston Street. They hoped that in doing so they’ll become a part of the ‘new neighborhood’ which everyone will want to be a part of and the example they gave was the village. She even compares moving to live a few blocks down to crossing over the Rocky mountains, granted it’s just an exaggeration here. But, to an extent this kind of makes them look arrogant. Take for example the actual pioneers who crossed the Rockies they weren’t the first to do so, after all there were native Americans around, but they like to believe they did because they thought they were superior. I’m not saying that this is what the couple is saying but, one could choose to interpret it that way. Furthermore, there is a similarity where the Native Americans were eventually removed from the land and with gentrification, eventually the ‘white man’ takes over the land.

Next he goes on to mention different types of themes that are developing in certain stores in Manhattan such as Tex-Mex themes as well as Native American themed places. I feel as though he was presenting gentrification in a new light with these examples. I feel that by describing how many different types of themes there are and how they are consistently adapting to the interest of the ‘white man’. To an extent I feel like Smith’s talking about the trend of fashion to consistently shift from fashionable to unfashionable. The analogy I feel Smith is making here is that the different themes are neighborhoods and it is referring to how people keep jumping neighborhoods to one in which they like more and this leads to Gentrification.

A third thing he mentioned which really got me confused as to his stance on gentrification is the story about ralph lauren and the talking about civil class nearing the end of the chapter. When it comes to Ralph Lauren, he says that Ralph Lauren was able to define what the average safari woman should look like even though he has never been to africa once. Therefore, I believe he is saying that a lot of human perspective is subjective and that many people are willing to agree with Ralph Lauren and say that in fact that is what a safari woman would look like when in actuality they might all be wrong. Similarly, he is saying that regarding what is considered the theory about combining civil class. This theory says that if people of good class join a neighborhood that has uncivil class qualities the good class should ‘teach’ the uncivil class and thereby make the neighborhood better as a whole. He disagrees with this theory which says gentrification can be beneficial by saying that the uncivil class is subject therefore the premise is flawed. Furthermore, it is implied in his writings that he doesn’t appreciate this theory because when he introduces it he kind of adds in parenthesis “without a murmur of dissent” which I read as a sarcastic way of saying that there should be more arguments against it.

When it comes down to it, I’m not really sure where Smith stands on gentrification, other than he didn’t like the theory of balancing the classes. He pretty much just closes with saying that gentrification is a word which holds a lot of value and that it can’t be easily described in one or two sentences.

In the article, “Building the Frontier Myth,” author Neil Smith discusses the concept of gentrification and how certain neighborhoods have developed over time. He describes how certain areas have evolved from run down and low income neighborhoods, occupied by working-class residents to affluent communities, dominated by high end fashion boutiques and upper-class citizens. Throughout the article, Smith compares the gentrification of New York City to the “Frontier Myth” or “Taming the Wild West” in order to represent the attitudes of the residents of New York City, as well as the “pioneers” who claim to have been the first settlers who started the transformation of these neighborhoods.

One thing that I found to be very interesting was the way the author described the transformation of the Lower East Side. During that time period, there were many people who were afraid of neighborhoods such as the Lower East Side. To them, it was an undiscovered territory marked by danger and the unknown. For example, in the article he provides a statement from a couple who moved to the Lower East Side, who compare themselves to “pioneers crossing the Rockies.” They believed that they were embarking on a journey, attempting to discover unchartered territories. They viewed themselves as visionaries or “urban pioneers. However, through gentrification, the Lower East Side has been transformed into a chic neighborhood, characterized by bars, restaurants and fashion boutiques. Rents are at their all time high and artists or small retailers are being replaced by high-end national tenants. Due to its increasing traffic and popularity it has replaced low income residents, with wealthy families.

Throughout the article, Smith compares many New York City neighborhoods, in particular Soho and the Lower East Side, to the Western frontier and the jungles of Africa. He explains that this transformation has occurred both in ideology and in the style of the fashion boutiques. In terms of ideology, he mentions that the gentrification of these neighborhoods can be compared to the discovery of the Wild West. He explains that he city is “oozing with optimism.” Areas that were viewed as run-down and low-income were being reinvigorated and replaced with up-beat middle-class neighborhoods. The working-class residents were kicked out or forced to move due to rising real estate prices, thereby transforming the neighborhood into one that was gentrified.

Furthermore, the frontier ideology also transformed the fashion and style of many of the high-end boutiques. Many stores in Soho were selling items such as Navajo rugs or terra-cotta pottery, things that characterized the Western frontier. One store even sold a bleached buffalo skull for $500. The city was taking on a new, rugged identity and it was exemplified throughout. New York City was also adopting an African jungle theme, to the point where many stores were organized to look like jungles. Ralph Lauren created a collection depicting the “Safari woman.” One point that Smith mentioned that I found extremely interesting was the fact that during that time, most New Yorkers couldn’t even fathom what was going on in Africa. It was an area that was underdeveloped, lacked capital and full of famine and war. However, people saw it as a remarkable, exotic fantasy and as an escape from the “gentrified city.”

At the end of the article Smith points a major fault of this frontier philosophy. In the myth the poor are seen as “uncivil” or savages. They are pictured as a group of people who don’t understand social norms and must be tamed and controlled by the civil, affluent and proper upper class. Although I believe that in some cases gentrification may prove to be great, by redeveloping and advancing certain areas, in some cases its consequences may outweigh its benefits. The number of people it displaces may outweigh the amount of good it produces. Therefore, I believe that we must look at each situation and neighborhood in its entirety in order to consider the possible effects that gentrification may have.

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.

According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, gentrify means renovate and improve (esp. a house or district) so that it conforms to middle-class taste; make (someone or their way of life) more refined or dignified. In the chapter “Neighborhood Effects in a Changing ‘Hood,” Lance Freeman presents various vantage points regarding the effects of gentrification. Freeman’s ultimate claim, however, is that no blanket statement can be applied to a gentrifying neighborhood. Such a process is neither entirely good nor entirely bad; there are many variables that need to be considered.

The perceived goals of gentrification have long been positive. Freeman cites early literature that supports the claim that improved housing stock, an increased tax base, new jobs, greater commercial activity and improved quality of services may all result from the neighborhood effects thesis. The contrasting belief that low-income households may have also been losers in gentrification, victims of displacement, is not as widely supported. But which view holds true?

Through previous literature, Freeman provides readers with several important factors that may result from gentrification: peer effects, collective efficacy, social ties and institutional resources. If implemented correctly, Freeman posits that the aforementioned factors can help, rather than hinder, gentrifying neighborhoods. These cases are not always perfectly implemented, however. During my previous IDC 3001H course, I had to analyze the effects of gentrification on Spanish Harlem. After speaking to several community members and an elected official, the shifting demographics of the neighborhood were forcing local business to close and people to move out. When this becomes the result, gentrification no longer provides a beneficial means of change for community members.

Freeman’s writing, coupled with my past experience in Spanish Harlem, made me realize that the best-case scenario is striking a happy balance between poverty deconcentration and the welcoming of “gentry.” Freeman describes very well how the personal interactions between gentry and older residents affect communities and people in complex ways. If the adverse effects of gentrification such as skyrocketing real estate prices (which often leads to the displacement of older residents) can be limited, then its true benefits can be realized.