Literature Regarding Gentrification
Doan, L. P., & Higgins, H. (2011). The demise of queer space? resurgent gentrification and the assimilation of lgbt neighborhoods. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(1), 6-25. Retrieved from http://jpe.sagepub.com.ez.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/content/31/1/6.full.pdf html
In summary, this article uses a case study of the Atlanta urban area in order to examine the results of “resurgent,” or burgeoning gentrification on LGBT neighborhoods. Through the evidence obtained in the case study, the article contextualizes the harmful effects of resurgent gentrification for the LGBT population specifically and gives evidence of how city planning is implicated in those consequences. In addition, the article discusses and tries to answer several questions about the ways that current gentrification has morphed the existing queer spaces and nearby areas that have ben affected by the relocation of LGBT individuals. The sum-up of the answers to these questions are that the existing queer spaces which were initially gentrified by LGBT individuals have become places where upper-middle class heterosexual individuals now feel safe to live, furthering the gentrification of these neighborhoods and displacing the LGBT community members who cannot afford the high rent and real estate values. LGBT members feel the most comfortable moving to “diverse” neighborhoods; however, their moving to these new neighborhoods causes racial tensions and ultimately the gentrification of those “diverse” neighborhoods.
Hackworth, J. (2002). Postrecession gentrification in new york city. Urban Affairs Review, 37(6), 815-843. Retrieved from http://uar.sagepub.com/content/37/6/815.full.pdf
Through this article the authors composite a sketch of the changes in the process of gentrification in its contemporary form. The author creates this sketch by the use of three case studies of the contemporary gentrification of three New York City neighborhoods: Clinton, Long Island City, and DUMBO (“Down Under the Manhattan Bridge Overpass”). The author’s purpose is to weave the “existing postrecession gentrification literature into the related inner-city real estate development literature” in order to derive at a composite picture of just how today’s gentrification differs from before. Both past literature and the three case studies the author discusses point to four changes in the way that gentrification works today in comparison to how it worked in prerecession New York City. These four point are: 1) corporate developers are more commonly initial gentrifiers than previously; 2) the sate more directly fuels the process than it did in the past; 3) anti-gentrification social movements are less prevalent in the “urban political sphere;” and 4) the “land economics” of the investments in the city have changed in ways that directly accelerate various sorts of neighborhood change.
Newman, Kathe and Elvin K. Wyly. “The Right to Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to Displacement in New York City.” Urban Studies 43.1 (2006): 23-57. Print. http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/researchbulletins/CUCSRB31-NewmanWyly.pdf
This source discusses the major negative side of gentrification, which is displacement of many who lived in communities before they were gentrified. This is a critical topic when thinking about the effects of gentrification. “Displacement is a limited yet crucial indicator of the deepening class polarization of urban housing markets.” It creates tension among various people. The main argument in the study is challenging the idea that “mixed-income redevelopment and other forms of gentrification are good.” Current data, including a “quantitative analysis of the New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey” and “qualitative analysis based on interviews with community organisers and residents documents,” are considered. Again, the issue is the displacement of people who have lower incomes, public housing, and rent regulation. This is a problem in many areas of the city, like Chelsea, where the original people who lived in the neighborhood might not be able to afford the rent as the years go on and the stages of gentrification increase. The more affluent will take over the attractive areas, pushing out poorer people into more distant neighborhoods, more crowded conditions, or out of their homes in the city altogether.
O’Sullivan, Mary Therese. “Home is Where the Art Is: The Impact that Housing Laws and Gentrification Policies have had on the Availability and Affordability of Artist Live/Work Spaces.” Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law 23.ni (2013): 1. Print. http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=sports_entertainment
This source discusses how most people believe artists to be on the low rung of society. However, it has been seen that in these past few decades, where ever artists have settled, wealth and “capital growth” have followed. The author of this article believes that artists are the pioneers of gentrification. Because others also believe this idea, many communities give incentives for new and up coming artists to settle in their neighborhoods. The work mentions Chelsea as one of the communities artists have affected and continue to affect. This is a result of rent becoming too high for artists in neighboring communities such as SoHo, thus moving them to Chelsea, which provided flats and cheaper rent. The work gives reasons why artists have the impact they do and why they should be supported. The main argument is that “safeguards need to be put in place to ensure that artists will not later be pushed out of the spaces that they convert and occupy.” So like the previous source, this article deals with displacement as an effect of gentrification. It suggests changes in housing laws concerning lofts and rent control/ rent stabilized apartments too. Information about artists, housing, and gentrification in this piece can be applied to Chelsea’s past, present, and future.
