Gentrification was, still is, and most likely will be an ongoing occurrence. A neighborhood that is considered “bad” or “old” will most likely slowly start to be gentrified, or as the author of the “The Birth of Gentrification” states in other terms “neighborhood revitalization.” This process has occurred all over the US, including many neighborhoods in New York City. The example used in the text is a great example; Brownstoning was started because banks refused to finance mortgages from areas of the city that were “risky” and so newsletters were created, public meetings and events were held to encourage people to take up Brownstones. This entire process ultimately resulted in brownstones becoming one of the most expensive and elite homes in all of the city. This process of gentrification seems to be occurring in all of the neighborhoods we are studying this semester. Slowly, but surely, new and “hip” stores are being opened up to bring in a newer, middle class population. It would be very interesting to track neighborhoods over a long period of time to see how quickly gentrification occurs.

Question: Why is gentrification an ongoing cycle in global cities?

Gentrification is an incredibly intricate process with lots of moving parts; I’m not sure how effective it is to try to reduce this complex phenomenon into a series of stages that can be applied across cities. In this sense, I agree with Rose (1984) who was mentioned in the Lees piece. To me, gentrification cannot be generalized, precisely because it involves so many actors. It truly is, as Rose put it, a “chaotic concept (34).” Nevertheless, I find Lees’ model to be interesting, and I wonder how it would hold up when applied to New York neighborhoods – like Red Hook – that are currently undergoing gentrification.

I’m conflicted about how I feel about gentrification. On the one hand reinvestment does tend to make a neighborhood safer, while boosting its economy and its physical appearance – this is evident and quite familiar to New Yorkers from the Park Slope example. But this comes at what cost? How can these positive ends be achieved without the secondary effect of displacing lower income residents? Is that even possible? More should be done by the state and the gentrifiers to ease this incredibly stressful process for those displaced.

It’s unreal to consider how the very beginning of gentrification would mimic so closely the current problems being found. It is, however, interesting to see how it’s progressed from movement into the city to movement within the city. At its genesis, it seems people from outside city limits would move into the city and raise the prices of rent and living tremendously. Now, however, it appears that this move comes from people of one area of the city into a new “up and coming neighborhood;” this is probably so that the movers will save some money, disregarding how much money the people already there will lose. In “The Birth of Gentrification,” a new resident of a gentrifying area is quoted as saying, “I like to smile at them and stop for a talk. But I don’t want to have tea with them” (Lees 19). This is a sentiment from the 1960’s; it’s sickening to think that this mentality hasn’t seemed to change. Perhaps it’s possible with proper planning to enact “brownstoning” without pushing out the current populous, but would that eradicate the tension that so obviously still exists?

While reading the readings for this week, I couldn’t help but think about how gentrification seems to be a problem without solution. In both readings, the historical trajectory of neighborhoods is the focus—the process of gentrification, what starts it, and where it ends up. But if, for instance, we’re talking about Crown Heights, where gentrification is currently in the process of kicking people out of the neighborhood as prices climb, what is the solution to the problem? Is gentrification’s end as a displacement of previous tenants and the investment of newer wealthier ones inevitable once the process starts? And me, as a middle-class white kid renting an apartment in Flatbush, what part do I have in the whole process?

These readings focused on public housing. To be honest I found the first reading The Neoliberal City, difficult to understand. While reading all the information seemed to get jumbled up in my head and I found my self confused, especially when the author discussed the various standpoints. The reading regarding De Blasio’s housing was a better read and informed me that something is actually being done. However, as I kept reading I realized that the plan had some flaws. Even though the plans seem helpful they really aren’t because eventually the rich can takeover causing a rise in housing cost as well. Lastly, the reading urging the city and state to act, showed the reader the conditions in which they live in. I was unable to access the Wall Street Journal article without a subscription but I did get the notion that if they sold the public houses they would make more money. After reading these articles it seemed as If we are doomed. Is there really nothing effective we can do to help those who rely on public housing without altering or damaging our economy? How can we change the fact that public housing appears to be useful but actually isn’t ?

The main issue with governmental aid, every time, is invariably funding. Anything is possible so long as you have the means to do it. To fund one program, there are only two options: raise taxes or cut funding elsewhere. Obviously no one likes either option. As in the New York Daily News article, the NYCHA is floundering due to lack of funds. I was interested to see that NYC government doesn’t contribute as much as the federal government, especially since the program – as far as I’m aware – caters specifically to the NYC area. And as I’m not really aware of the NYC budget, I can’t say whether or not their contribution is too little or a good allotment of the funds.

I couldn’t read the entire WSJ article, but the headline may be going in the right direction. If the government can’t support a program, aid from the private sector is definitely a viable option. It may not be one that people like as much, but it’s better than killing the program indefinitely.

What is your opinion of private sector funding and development on housing? Do you think that the NYC government should commit more funds to NYCHA? What services do you think they should cut to do so, or what alternative method would you suggest to fund the program?

The Hacksworth reading was an insightful and detailed description of neo-liberalism, it’s development and ideological specificities, and more importantly the potentially disastrous role it is playing in the way in which our legislation is currently dealing with housing. The foundations of this form of thought seem to be conducive to an environment in which the standard quality of life of tenants is habitually sacrificed. This philosophy is based around an individual’s responsibility to provide for themselves, which is easily twisted into being a rationalization for the abuse of ownership and financial power. That is the overall gist I extracted from the reading, however I became lost in a lot of the minutia and jargon which unfortunately resulted in a lot of the examples flying right over my head. I became especially lost when comparisons and contrasts were being made between neoliberalism and its various philosophical counterpoints, more notably neo-conservatism. It seemed to me like a lot of time was spent stretching these comparisons without enough of a clear singular definition of certain terms in order to contextualize the arguments.

Question- What is the solution to the neo-liberal tendencies within our system? How do we avoid it as a society?