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.

In “Building the Frontier Myth,” Neil Smith talks about the changing attitudes amongst New York City residents and how the thinking about certain neighborhoods has evolved over time. I find it to be very interesting that at one point in time, people had never thought about living on Ludlow Street. No one had heard of Ludlow Street and the residents hoped that this neighborhood would eventually grow up to be another Village in New York. The comparison of crossing Houston Street to pioneers crossing the Rockies showed how dramatic the transition must have been for so many people living in the city at the time.

Overall, this was a period of great change in the urban landscape. The new urban frontier motif not only was about the physical transformation of the built environment but also about a larger cultural change. People were starting to wear the fashion of the urban cowboys. This changing fashion sense in the urban environment in New York was centered in SoHo. In many ways, this part of Manhattan is still known for its new fashion styles and its transformational sense in culture. The residents tend to be artists looking for new inspiration and unique ideas.

In particular, I think that the “Americana West” store represents the sense of change that came across New York at the time. Its theme of a crossover cultural geography between city and desert is applicable to many neighborhoods in New York City today. There are many attempts to bring back styles and use inspiration from other cultures and traditions in New York. For example, Ralph Lauren introducing a collection centered on “the Safari women” to rediscover and reinvent their prominence in gentrification on earlier frontiers.

The use of non-endangered woods in this urban frontier show that although people wanted to bring western influence in the city landscape. This is a good aspect since they were not hurting the environment while they were trying to bring change to the city environment. I agree with the writer that today, the frontier ideology continues to displace social conflict into the realm of myth, and at the same time to reaffirm a set of class-specific and race-specific social norms.

I agree with the definition of gentrifying neighborhoods as bringing a civil class together with a uncivil class and classifying them to which extent civil or uncivil behavior dominates. This determines the extent to which the gentrification was effective and worked in improving the neighborhood. I do not agree with the idea that you need a civilized group to help the uncivilized by defining one as good or bad. I think that the “uncivilized” can be helped through programs and support from the people who are more “civilized.” People should not be labeled as being civil or uncivil because this just creates division in classes.

In the reading, Wilson states that the socioeconomic composition of one’s neighbors determine how one’s life will become (i.e. if your neighbors are successful, you will strive to be like them). I am torn with this statement. I agree with what Wilson said in the sense that people affect each other. A similar example is friends and how they peer pressure one another to be like each other. If you surround yourself with hard working people, it pushes you to work hard as well, or then you feel like you do not fit in. However, when I look at my neighborhood, there are many people who just keep to themselves. I do not see them changing and trying to “become” like the rest of the neighborhood. I think the problem with Wilson’s statement is that people are only affected by others if they have a close relationship. If people live near each other, but do not interact, there will not be that much of an effect among each other.

I think the idea of vouchers is better than placing people with similar incomes all in one area. And I agree with policy makers that mixing classes is the solution for housing problem. However, I think there is a thin line within that answer. For instance, I do not think wealthy people would want to live with poor people, nor can poor people afford to live where wealthy people live. However, if the classes are more similar such as low income and low-middle income, then it seems more plausible. In addition, a benefit from the mixing of the classes is that it prevents an area to be only grouped by low income people, which gives a sentimentality that the area is labeled as “bad.”

My thoughts of gentrification is torn. I agree with Freeman that although it increases housing costs and can lead to many people leaving, it also has its advantages that it benefits the community because it increases the standard of living in a way. It just all depends on how you look at it–in the short run or in the long run. I wonder by how much does housing costs increases?

I find the statement of the characteristic of the neighborhood and its affect on values and norms of the area interesting. I concur that if neighbors trust each other, they are able to set up proper norms of behavior among the community and also protect the area from threats. That explains why some neighborhoods are more safe than others. However, I believe there are other factors besides trust as well, such as how neighbors have to look out for each other and care for one another.

Freeman mentions that affluent neighbors influence institutions in a neighborhood, which benefits it. Although this may be true, I also think it works the other way. The Upper West Side used to be an unsafe place to live (think “West Side Story” with the gangs). However, once the tenements in the area were demolished, institutions such as Lincoln Center was built which enhanced the neighborhood. Not only do people affect the community, but what the community has to offer attracts the people. It is like a never ending cycle, in which both sides influence one another.