Rya Mishra, Maria Osorio, Isobela Suster, Courtney Takats, and Kyle Williams
Owen Toews
Seminar in the Future of New York City
March 29, 2015

Gentrification in Crown Heights

INTRODUCTION: ETYMOLOGIES AND ECONOMICS

Gentrification is a process of displacement in which “working class quarters” become “invaded by the middle class,” or gentry; the term was first coined by British sociologist Ruth Glass in 1964 to describe conditions in London at the time (Lees et al). Since its coinage, urban sociologists have been particularly interested in gentrification as cases of it crop up again and again.

Though it could perhaps be understood as a rather marginal process in the time of Glass, gentrification has become “the cutting edge of urban change” (Smith), the displacement of the original, inevitably lower-class occupants from the neighborhood causes much tension between the urban pioneers coming in and the native populus being forced out, without care as to where they might end up; as Engels says: “The bourgeoisie has only one method of settling the housing question…The breeding places of disease, the infamous holes and cellars in which the capitalist mode of production confines our workers night after night are not abolished; they are merely shifted elsewhere” (Smith).

Economists view gentrification as a sign of economic growth in an area (Biro), but from a socioeconomic standpoint, this displacement occurs in waves of disinvestment and reinvestment: as a neighborhood is understood by landlords and developers to be lacking, the safety and health of those living in it are put to the wayside and buildings allowed to deteriorate, eventually forcing people out; once undesirable tenants are gone reinvestment takes hold to attract tenants of a higher economic status—rents are then increased, forcing out the remainder of the original occupants and preventing their return. Data presented by tax arrears, or “nonpayment of property taxes,” is a sound indication of disinvestment in a neighborhood, becoming “an investment strategy,” providing property owners “guaranteed access to capital that would otherwise have been ‘lost’ to tax payments” (Smith). As disinvestment takes its hold, urban pioneers (in New York City, typically young artists, as presented by the cases in the Lower East Side and Williamsburg) take root in the neighborhood and “revitalize,” offering landlords and developers an indication for reinvestment. The line of gentrifications will sweep through a neighborhood, forcing people to uproot at its front like a pilot plow, and leaving an economic turn in its wake which its pioneers cannot usually afford—keeping the train moving.

GENTRIFICATION IN NEW YORK CITY: LOISAIDA TO EAST VILLAGE

Gentrification in New York City may have its roots in its exact opposite: white flight, a massive migration in the mid-twentieth century of people of white european backgrounds from the mix of races in the city to the racially homogenous suburbs, can be seen as one grand and intense period of disinvestment. Reinvestment, then, would be provided by a subsequent “back to the city” movement, after the severe levels of urban decay caused by the socioeconomic forces which white flight can be seen to have caused; the back to the city movement, or “brownstoning,” was initiated in 1968 with a pro-gentrification committee organized by Everett Ortner, and the committee’s magazine, The Brownstoner; The committee facilitated and recommended gentry who had moved from the city to come back, to reinvest, and bring forth a period of urban wealth by then forgotten (Lees). The efforts worked, with brownstones now worth well over a million dollars.

Later, in the 1970’s, Manhattan’s Lower East Side, or Loisaida, would undergo the same sort of process. Disinvestment was aided by banks redlining the district—refusing any requests for loans, which could have been used to prevent its urban decay—and the general upkeep—or lack thereof—pushed many of its inhabitants out, leaving an opening for the line of gentrification coming from the neighborhoods in proximity. With gentry, this time in the form of artists attracted to the low prices of the neighborhood and its location. These artists signalled developers to reinvest in Loisaida, pushing it away from its roots as a latino neighborhood and rechristening the area as the East Village “by real estate agents and art world gentrifiers who, anxious to distance themselves from the historical association with the poor immigrants who dominated this community at the turn of the century” (Smith); banks green-lined the neighborhood and rent prices shot up, even beyond what the artists could afford.

Though pockets of former residents remained in the neighborhood in the shape of “loosely organized antigentrification and squatters’ movements,” connected with “local housing groups,” the city’s organization itself was their enemy: by the time of the Tompkins Square protests, the city had organized police forces to abet gentrification and shrouded it in political rhetoric which ensured gentrification’s victory in the area: numerous police crackdowns, in which “The policemen were radiating hysteria” with abuses of power and concealed badge-numbers, made residents’ know where they were not wanted, as politicians decried them as “communists” and twisted the rhetoric so pushing people out of the area was seen as a samaritan act, as “It would be ‘irresponsible to allow the homeless to sleep outdoors’ in such cold weather, explained a disingenuous parks commissioner, Henry J.Stern, who did not mention that the city shelter system had beds for only a quarter of the city’s homeless people” (Smith).

The line of gentrification, originating in Greenwich village in the 1950’s, moving into SoHo by the late 1970’s, then into Chinatown and then East Village, was a historical force which may well be seen as parallel to the situation in Crown Heights, the line currently sweeping over the area having origins in Cobble Hill and Williamsburg, aided by the L train.

INTO CROWN HEIGHTS

Acting as a parallel to the gentrification of the lower east side, along the L-line in Brooklyn there has been continuing gentrification. Developers began buying up land in all parts of brooklyn and when they were through with neighborhoods like Bushwick, Bedford Stuyvesant, and Park Slope, there was a natural pull to come to Crown Heights (Gregor). Crown heights basically consisted of abandoned warehouses, beaten up warehouses, and old mechanic shops. The main goal of developers was to create apartment buildings, such as the Hello Living apartment complexes at 834 Sterling Place. These apartments (depending on the size and the real estate company that owns them) could go from $2,000 all the way up to around $4,000 per month (Gregor). though this may be profitable to developers and building owners, lower income families and individuals are having a really tough time adjusting to any type of rent increase and thus, owners are trying to push these people out. Sandoval, an immigrant living in Crown Heights, is fighting to stay in his apartment because his landlord will not accept the fact that his apartment is rent-stabilized (which protects him from being evicted) (Gopal).

As a mirror to the problems inherent in the 1970’s gentrification, there are governmental issues impeding the fight against higher prices. For instance, there was a distinct reluctance in Crown Heights of the community board in the community meetings we attended to implement policies keeping the residents safe from high rent. Stresses have been high in the neighborhood because of this, often manifesting through racial tension, as evidenced by the decrease in 11% of the black population from 2000-2010. Whether the gentrification can be halted or alleviated remains to be seen, but it appears there are going to continue to be issues in the neighborhood until something happens.

Another factor leading to gentrification of Crown Heights is the dramatic rise of apartment and home prices from a few years back. Houses that were once worth nothing, have been renovated and remade and are now solds for over a million dollars each. This is truly apparent in many buyers, who could not afford a fancy home in Park Slope or Forte Greene. As Julian Katz stated in an interview, “We loved Fort Greene but we could only afford a modest apartment there. We could get a whole house in Crown Heights” (Gopal). Since Crown Heights is new to the gentrification chapter, it is slightly cheaper than other high class neighborhoods. With this new class of people moving in, the older residents are being forced out, along with their well established businesses. Many nail salons, West Indian bakeries, 99 cents stores have signs informing people that they are “Moving to Flatbush” (Gregor). The benefits of this gentrification are apparent to one Crown Heights resident, Ms. Jacobs. She notices that crime rates have dropped tremendously, and thats due to the increased presence of police. She loves this statistic so she can raise her family in a safer neighborhood, but the environment and atmosphere is completely different from when she was a child. Ms. Jacobs states that “But all my friends are gone. Everybody that I grew up with that lived in the neighborhood, the folks that I’ve known for years, are gone” (Gregor). Another woman who was asked to describe how her neighborhood has changed said its “like a little Manhattan over here” (Ewing and Rotondaro). Franklin Avenue is actually defined as the most gentrified, because it has been described as a shopping street, lined with pizzerias, bakeries, small boutiques, versus, when back in the 2000s, the avenue only had dollar stores, braiding salons, bodegas, and a few small restaurants as its primary shops (Ewing and Rotondaro).

While there’s a common consensus that gentrification has begun to affect Crown Heights, residents have addressed it to varying degrees of frankness. At a community meeting, one woman said in a private interview with us: “With gentrification, the neighborhood changed for the better. I’ve been here for four years; I was told by my neighbors that ten years ago two women would not have been able to own a bar and restaurant together,” as she does. When pressed for how this tied in with gentrification of the area, the woman said: “Just three years ago there was a murder; I was told it was drug-related. But there’s more police presence as the neighborhood improves: the sad fact is that with gentrification, services improve. There are the drawbacks: people get pushed out and can’t afford it—the apartments in prospect heights are overpriced. But there are trade-offs with everything—that’s the reality. A good customer of mine is rallying against the high rises being proposed.” Unfortunately, this conversation highlights the major drawback of gentrification: the economic strain and displacement of previous residents.

In a more blunt conversation with two men on their stoop, one of the men commented on the futility of trying to fight the rising prices of property in Crown Heights. When asked to elaborate, he went on to describe how his cousin had been pushed out of his own neighborhood of Park Slope not too many years ago. On the subject of community meetings and getting his voice out into the neighborhood, this gentleman was less than enthusiastic. “It doesn’t matter what we say,” He said, “You need money to have power and power to have a voice and I don’t have the money and I don’t have the power and I don’t have the voice.” There’s so much at stake with gentrification that for those whom it affects, there seem to be no positive aspects. The displacement is more of an issue than the increased safety is a benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

While the situation in Crown Heights is presenting itself as rapid and somewhat dire, it’s important to keep in mind that its situation as a place undergoing gentrification is not isolated: it is the product of historical socioeconomic forces and must be seen as such to be understood. It is undergoing dis- and reinvestment, politics and police are involved, the community is fighting against it—Crown Heights is not a special case, it’s just a current one. Like one resident interviewed at a community meeting said: “There are a lot of people interested in investing in this community and the people who’ve been here don’t want to get shafted”—in effect, the very same situation presented along every line of gentrification.

WORKS CITED

• Biro, Jessica. “Gentrification: Deliberate Displacement or Natural Social Movement?” The Park Place Economist 15.1 (2007): 42-46. Web. <http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=parkplace>.
• Ewing, Maura, and Vinnie Rotondaro. “The Ins and The Outs.” The Ins and The Outs. Marquee, 15 Jan. 2013. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.
• Gopal, Prashant. “Brooklyn Boom Squeezes Buyers Pushing Into Crown Heights.” Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 28 Aug. 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2015.
• Gregor, Alison. “Crown Heights, Brooklyn, Gets Its Turn.” n.d.: n. pag. The New York Times. The New York Times, 05 July 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2015.
• Lees, Lorretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin Wyly. 2008. Gentrification. Chapter 1, “The Birth of Gentrification”. p.3-36
• Smith, Neil. 1996. “Mapping the Gentrification Frontier”, “Class Struggle on Avenue B: The Lower East Side as Wild Wild West.”  The New Urban Frontier.