Gentrification has existed for quite some time. Despite many new terms like “revitalization” or “back-to-the-city” movement, gentrification still continues to be a destructive process. In The Brownstoner, “they argued that gentrification was not “genocide” but “genesis”. In reality, however, gentrification is only “genesis” for those who are able to make a profit by revitalizing a dilapidated house building and selling it for a higher price to an upper middle-class family. However, the under-emphasized result is the displacement of the low-income families in the area as it becomes more gentrified. As the area becomes more upscale, so does the cost of living, forcing the existing low-income families to move. Under Robert Moses, much of New York City was transformed with expressways and but as many people criticized, displaced hundreds of thousands of people in effect. Even though gentrification may appear to beautify neighborhoods, in reality “brownstoning” has many devastating, behind-the-scenes effects that far outweigh any of its positive effects.

Question: How can we improve low-income neighborhoods without necessarily gentrifying them?

“Inclusionary zoning might displace more poor people than it houses, but when the system’s casualties aren’t counted, they aren’t seen.” Despite the façade of success that inclusionary zoning may at first be promoting, Inclusionary zoning cannot be fixed with a mandatory vs. relaxed approach. Under Mayor Bloomberg, inclusionary zoning did not create affordable housing and in addition, affordable housing was not very “affordable” since many of the families living in NYC make much less than the area median income, which is the basis of inclusionary rent. Even with Mayor DeBlasio mandating that developers set aside 20% of the new apartments for low incoming, it still leaves around 80% for high-income earners. With an influx of affluent residents, neighborhoods will be pulled even more towards gentrification, increasing the cost of living in the area. Inclusionary zoning also risks pushing out already affordable housing. Many housing complexes are rent-stabilized at much lower rates than inclusionary zoning would require. As bigger buildings are built, landowners of rent-stabilized housing will be encouraged to sell and the once “affordable housing” will be replaced with more expensive housing and only a few affordable housing complexes. Affordable will no longer be affordable under inclusionary zoning.

Question: Are there any other housing models that could be used to provide affordable housing?

In “Criminalizing Homelessness”, the article discusses how some cities characterize homelessness as a crime and treat it the way any other crime should be dealt with-through laws, while other cities attempt to prevent homelessness through more positive approaches like establishing shelters, providing soup kitchens…etc. In many cities, like NYC both approaches to homelessness have been deployed. While NYC does offer soup kitchens and free clinics, they also have established laws that criminalize homelessness. For example, on many subways, there are clear signs posted urging subway riders not to provide money to beggars. Some cities take harsher approaches to homelessness like in Long Beach, California where “officials pick up homeless people under vagrancy laws, drive them out of town and then leave them there; they also offer homeless people one-way bus tickets to other locations.” These policies view homelessness as a choice, when those who are homeless do not choose to be. Most of the homeless population in NYC and elsewhere suffer from mental disorders like schizophrenia that do not allow them to hold down a job or live a normal life.

Question-What has been the most successful method implemented by any city to diminish and/or prevent homelessness to date?

In “Theoretical Perspectives on the City”, the author points out that any topic research can be answered in a number of different ways. He then goes on to pose the question “Are societies and social institutions orderly systems composed of interdependent parts?” to show that there is no clear right or wrong answer as either perspective can be taken. I thought about this questions and although I am not a researcher, I sided with those who believed the answer to be “no”. Society and social institutions, I believe, are controlled by those in power and as such are often grounds for power struggles. In some societies, these power struggles present themselves as rebellions and civil war, whereas in other societies they are more structured through political elections. In order to explain societies, particularly modern urban societies, theories were proposed as to how they function. One theory that was particularly interesting was that of Ferdinand Tonnies. After reading his views on rural vs. urban life, I wondered why he felt that modernization was such a threatening and self-promoting process? It could be because of the unfortunate consequences like hazardous working conditions.