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.

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.

I enjoyed reading what Braconi had to say about new york’s housing policy as well as other things mentioned relating to that topic. But, there was one thing I wanted to focus more on and these are the three reasons he gives as to why there is a high amount of housing disinvestment in New York. The reasons he provides are that the city owned a lot of the housing, the improvements the city places on it’s housing developing projects and the city’s system of rent regulation. In general, I was wondering if those reasons have an effect on the current housing situation in New York or if they no longer apply.

After further research it would seem that the first reason provided by Braconi may or may not still apply. The reason for this is because since Braconi presented this work homeownership has gone up and in fact reached it’s highest amount in history. Braconi published this book in 1999, according to the New York Times (and the us census) in the year 2000 the percentage of people who owned their own homes was 30% (years before that it was 28%) and 5 years later in 2005 the percentage of homeowners went up to 33.2%. Therefore, one can see a trend in rising homeownership by the person as opposed to the state. Furthermore, regarding the time period he’s writing about, the percentage of owners was about 19% if not less. Therefore, one can see how there is a significant change in the percentage of people who owned homes and this reason wouldn’t have the same effect as it once did.

The second reason Braconi mentions is the idea that the City constantly has improvements on it’s housing projects. This idea in my opinion still applies to today. For example, take the exhibit in the Museum of the History of New York, the exhibit shows a new type of one person apartment. Maybe the tour guide at the museum should go into real estate because she was really selling the house showing how even though it’s small there is a lot of room and also adding that they plan on adding a type of community within the building where there will be a lobby/plaza as well as other places for the residents to mingle. This is a more current example of how the city is providing exceptional housing projects. It would not surprise me at all if when these buildings are released to the public that a lot of people would flock to these buildings.

The third reason provided is the city’s rent regulations and according to recent trends in rent, in Brooklyn rent is increasing over the past 13 months regarding both one bedroom apartments and two bedroom apartments. Regarding the rest of New York City the average rate of rent can range between 1000 and 5000, keep in mind this is just the average and prices could in fact be higher. Furthermore, the more you want out of the apartment/housing, the more you should be expecting to pay more. For example, if you want to add a doorman, you should be expecting to pay an extra 12% minimum and that’s just in Manhattan in Queens it can go up to 43% extra. So, it is clear that these prices might deter people from buying and just as Braconi mentioned, it can drive these people to public housing.

After doing some basic research about the three reasons provided by Braconi regarding modern times it is clear that there is kind of a timeless truth to what he’s saying. The same reasons which he published in this book in 1999 still apply nowadays. However, one must not forget there may be other reasons not mentioned here for why someone would want to use public housing, but one shouldn’t overlook the truth in the words of Braconi.

Much of our class has focused on the shaping of New York City through housing. With a growing (and changing) population, it remains an important part of urban growth. However, government intervention in the housing sector has long received very mixed results. From being labeled socialist to being frowned upon, there has been no shortage of criticism. With instances such as the one Michael Powell writes about in his article Government Can’t Help? Tell That to the South Bronx, on the other hand, we see that there is hope in positively shaping the lives of many through governmental assistance.

The South Bronx has long been known for its rocky past. Associated with words such as “apocalypse,” “corpse,” “macabre” and “resurrection” throughout Powell’s article, it is clear that the South Bronx was severely hurting in the 1970s. Burnt-out buildings lined streets and “smack dealers” were commonplace. However, much of the comeback the South Bronx has made in recent years, according to Powell, can be attributed to governmental rebuilding initiatives.

The article alludes that it was government involvement that revived the once dismal South Bronx. More than $8 million towards 165,000 apartments and four new schools to educate nearly 2,000 children changed the lives of many in the area. As Powell states, “the Bronx stands as arguably the greatest public rebuilding achievement since World War II.” That is no small feat!

Although I was not witness to the changing atmosphere in the South Bronx, hearing stories such as Celida Pinet’s or Ayala’s and Jesus Rivera’s allow me to better envision the stark contrast of the pre-1970’s South Bronx and the neighborhood today. It is sad to think that there are areas in Memphis, Newark, Atlanta and even Chicago that remain hopeless, despite the potential each area may hold.

Unfortunately, the degrees of success of government plans runs the gamut, ranging from failures such as Pruitt-Igoe to successes such as the South Bronx. This uncertainty leads to questions regarding the true necessity of government involvement. Is it a hit or miss situation? The truth is, housing will always be a necessity, especially in dense areas with growing populations. If the past could be used as a guide, planned urban development could possibly be perfected. With proper planning and long-term goals in mind, the government can truly accomplish a lot — perhaps even lessen the stigma surrounding planned development today.