Where Should the Money Go?
As Dr. Stogdill mentioned in class, the topic that is most discussed in our class is gentrification. The issue of gentrification as we have seen includes so many different aspects and there are so many different perspectives and opinions on the issue. Even today during our Urban Lab, seeing the expensive coffee/breakfast shops for bikers and the expensive apartments right in the middle of industrial building and lower-class housing was a perfect example. We have been successful at unpacking the basis of gentrification and acknowledging the reality of the issue and how it’s so present in the Los Angeles area, but my question is about the financial aspect of it. We have talked about the “justifications” of gentrification but why do you think so much money goes into imposing expensive businesses and building expensive complexes, stores etc. in a neighborhood rather then using that money for something that would actually benefit the community of Los Angeles. For example why spend so much money trying to implement an expensive private school in a struggling neighborhood instead of improving the public school that is already there? Why use so many resources to help a new business adapt to a new community rather than help the struggling business, that is already there, get off the ground and get going again? Yes maybe it’s because it would attract more people bring in more revenue but will that cause Los Angeles to continue to cover-up their issues in neighborhoods by putting in something “better"? Will Los Angeles lose its reputation of economic diversity and become a utopian society? if this continues, what resources will Los Angeles use to support the city’s underlying struggles? Will they be effective?
I haven't really thought about gentrification in this way: considering why the money is being put into new developments rather than improving the issues that may already be present. As far as your example about implementing a private school rather than improving the public school that is there, I also see this as an issue. In this case though, I think the developers might see the new private school as something that would be benefitting the community instead of disrupting it. They may view it as an opportunity for better quality education and a way to bring money into the community. Also, the community may not have the funds of resources to invest into improving a public school, especially when there may be many public schools in the area. On the other hand, I also don't think placing an expensive private school in a struggling community would make much of a difference in the education of the local students. I think it would cater more to students of money and privilege outside the immediate community. While I think it would take some time to develop into a utopian society, especially in a city as large as Los Angeles, I do see the potential of a demise in economic diversity. Since gentrification is taking place in areas of poverty/low income, money is being brought into the area, but not as a benefit to the community, but rather to the individual business and corporations. Also, because many of these new coffee shops and stores, for example, are expensive, the people living in community in which they are being developed cannot afford to go to them. If in fact these developers are building in these areas to better the community and make it a more 'appealing' place to go, they need to do a better job of actually thinking about the people of the community. These businesses need to use the resources available to them to find way to help the community and listen to their voices and opinions. I also think the big corporations that are looking to develop should first consider what is in the community they can improve on using that money instead of going straight to a brand new development. In this way, they are using the money as a resource to improve an underlying issue that could benefit and cater to the entire community rather than just a select group of non-locals.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the creation of new buildings, businesses, or schools rather than helping those that are already there...but there are people who believe that new is better. My simple answer to all of the changes that happen in LA are some people think "new", exciting, reputation building development plans are more worthy than finding support for their local, low income communities. It is believed that to "fix" a low income community, one has to build new, shiny store fronts that attract money. And that works. As we have discussed as a class, we contribute in some way- I AM attracted to those trendy coffee shops or restaurants. But I also witness my mother directly working with families living in poverty every day. The money should go there. Los Angeles has a staggering large amount of homeless individuals. The new buildings that should be built are those benefiting people through various service centers. The struggling businesses in low-income communities could excel if given a push. There is an image of LA that people are trying to build but as they scammer for that ideal city they ignore the reality of LA. The reality of those who are being pushed out of their homes or can't find work or have to go to public schools with fundings far too low. Those realities will not go away but worsen if gentrification continues to overpower the true needs of Los Angeles communities.
ReplyDeleteThe money is going towards building those expensive businesses and complexes because thats what makes the most money. I'm sure if there were a way to improve the community of Los Angeles while also making a boatload of money people would do so, but for the time being, buying up cheap real estate and using them to create new businesses and expensive housing makes money and is a great investment in the long term. Also, public schools are government funded while private schools aren't, so there is a ton of money being put into private schools versus public schools is because corporations are directly funding that school. Next, governments have no part in building the expensive complexes and businesses at all whatsoever. Finally, why was this posted at 9:20? The deadline was 7:00 and I was very tempted to not comment, but as the willing participant of the class that I am, I decided that it was my duty to this class comment my insight.
ReplyDeleteI think that so much money goes into these expensive places because the developers have found a market that can support these sort of impulse buys. As well to speak on the question of why people may not want to invest in public schools and would rather invest in expensive schools is because I believe that people do not want to deal with crap. Rather than working from the ground up and developing a solid final product that has been built up, people would rather just have the nicest things first. As well investing in these "crap" buildings does not rack up as much of a profit as building a new "hipster" restaurant would and as a result, this is why you don't see as much investment in communities and more new building.
ReplyDeleteYou brought up a great point in talking about what fixing up a neighborhood is without being gentrification, echoing in a sense, Turner's post. Objections aside from the moral or ethical dilemma of gentrification, the opinion presented here slightly conflicts the one presented in the previous post leading for good discussion. Using cash to, instead of replacing, refurbishing the area still leads to gentrification as alluded to in Turner's Post. Picking up pieces of trash on the LA river could be considered as something not necessarily hip, but as a result it drags hipsters along with it. Offense is still taken by the locals in what would be considered here as a non-offensive or intrusive act. Still with it outjuts the ever apparent problem. The dilemma facing those who wish to improve an area without sacrificing the inhabitants in it. Evidently it seems high impossible. Direct action in the form of replacing lower-class local business with upscale-pricey high-end coffee shops is obviously not the way to tackle the problem. Little appears to be achieved in benefit of original local community in keeping intact from the foreign forces. And as posted by Turner, passively helping through giving money to only improve the beauty levels of the area or community attracts the same gentrification. Time is not on any locals side when facing this change, with no clear solution in sight. Ears are wide open for ways to fix this problem, but as expertly pointed out by Jack, the money will go where the money will go.
ReplyDeleteWoah I like this question. This is something we haven't questioned yet. It makes me seriously question the minimal, intended benefits of gentrification because if the change was truly inspired to make a community better, then we would work to strengthen what is already there. Why does a community that is struggling to educate their children need a hip little coffee shop or a new dog park? Gentrification can make a neighborhood safer because with the flow of families or young artists- gangs, mentally ill, poverty crime can go down. But where do those people go? They are forced to condense and crowd in the corner rather than receive help. A strong way to restrengthen a community is to focus on the people in need and use applicable resources to guide people in the right direction. Moving in and popping coffee shops or art galleries up around communities guides people to move out and bring their struggles with them. This "cleansing" of communities leads to the condensing of struggle. The definition of utopia is "an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect." Hip, new neighborhoods would satisfy the stereotyped picture-perfect LA some people desire, but as defined, a utopia is impossible. Struggle will just be placed behind the curtains, fronted by a gleaming lie of Los Angeles. The utopia we should be reaching for is the one where race and class can diversely coexist. By using available resources to address suffering rather than wish it away, we could effectively step towards establishing a Los Angeles that satisfies everyone.
ReplyDeleteI agree that gentrification poses a real threat to the economic diversity that characterizes much of Los Angeles; however (and I realize this contributes to the materialistic, greedy stereotype of people living in L.A.), money will always be a reason to expunge a certain population and create brand new developments instead of helping those already there overcome their difficulties. The money to fund renovation of a struggling business in a neighborhood economically different from majority of the city does not exist—investors see no reason to finance such endeavors because it would provide them with nothing in return. Helping a small family business in Frogtown keep its doors open gives the investors nothing, whereas building a modern new coffee shop where they can charge 5 dollars for a small latte and 11 dollars for a piece of toast with mashed avocado truly brings in revenue. Especially if this new location has been designed to look a certain way, feature a trendy wall, or serve a unique drink or dessert, investors can be sure that wealthy individuals eager to explore the city and spend their money will come and bring in immense revenue. The same thing goes for education: while improving public schools might be what is best for a struggling neighborhood, investors can only feel good after financing new programs or paying for teachers to start teaching new subjects—they cannot profit from a public school, whereas building an expensive private school would in turn bring in tons of money from the sky-high tuition families are forced to pay. Unfortunately, the list of resources Los Angeles can use to support communities facing difficulties is becoming shorter and shorter each day. It would take a completely new mindset to reorganize investing efforts and show people the value in preserving/renovating existing neighborhoods to keep L.A. as economically and culturally diverse as possible.
ReplyDelete"why do you think so much money goes into imposing expensive businesses and building expensive complexes, stores etc. in a neighborhood rather then using that money for something that would actually benefit the community of Los Angeles."
ReplyDeleteThe answer to this question is straight forward: people like nice things, and when people have money they invest that money in creating more luxurious environments to live in. It's not a question of whether or not a community "needs" a hip new coffee shop or a new dog park. Developers don't care about what a community needs, and it is sad that they don't care about the community they are intruding into, but their main concern is creating profit for themselves and establishing business and commerce in an area that wasn't thriving beforehand. It is also terrible that communities get forced out of their neighborhoods, but that is also a good thing for people in low income neighborhoods because their property value immensely increases when they sell their house which allows them to live a more financially stable life in whatever new neighborhood that they choose to relocate to.
Solving for gentrification by helping local struggling business could hypothetically work. But I don't know, that plan sounds an awful lot like communism to me. Jokes aside, development happens and it generally tends to make a community better. When new businesses come in, they generate more revenue which increases the taxes the city collects which in turn improves the quality of schools.
Within the market, it's an open ground for competition and if a new "hip" business replaces an older business because they sell better quality products that are more appealing to the population to which they market towards, that replacement is just the natural chain of development and competition
If the question is where the money “should go” , I believe that we should be working on strengthening stores and restaurants that already exist. The problem is, gentrification does not occur solely from these new coffee shops but from larger companies, people/groups in position(s) of power, policymakers etc. They do not see these areas as areas where “strengthening” is a priority, but come to impose a new way of life that excludes many people already living in these areas. I think this question also relates to this idea that we think we are helping communities by improving school districts and making the community “safer”. However, once these schools have improved a large number of kids have had to move out due to an increase in rent. The money that is being spent to improve these areas is only being seen and enjoyed by the people that are able to afford to live in these areas after the rent has increased.
ReplyDeleteGentrification in itself, making a lower class into a middle class, is used to bring in other shops, markets, food stores, as well as coffee shops, only to help itself knowing that since it’s in an “urban” area. They are more likely to go there because it is “trendy.” A way that we can help this is to improve older shops and markets and restaurants and coffee shops that are already there. Helping the people and locals that are already there can improve their living situation and make the neighborhood seem more “middle-class.” This could also help in the financial aspect of ‘gentrifying’ because it would essentially cost less than making an entirely new building and it would also help out other residents in at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI think that L.A. invests in business and private schools in communities because of its focus on capitalism. The government cares about making money. Money comes from business and entrepreneurship, not as much public works. Money is often in the hands of white people. The white middle class is moving into neighborhoods that are largely of color and low-income. Because of the focus on capital, there is less regulation than there needs to be regarding property development in those neighborhoods. Thus developers have more room to scheme people out of their homes. Those developers are focused on profit.
ReplyDeleteThere has also been a history of limited government involvement and funds into neighborhoods of color. Now that white people are moving in, more wealth circles the neighborhood. But instead of those funds benefitting the institutions previously there, they displace the people previously there. The community isn’t “integrating” in the way that some might hope. I think that white people moving into those neighborhoods are probably not as inclined to send their kids to the public school with more students of color as they are to send them to the private school with funding. They want the “best” for their little Tommy—the “progressive” education, the sustainable classrooms and pretty playground. They also want the $4.50 organic coffee rather than the 50 cent one from that place with the Spanish name. This all ties back to segregation in L.A., which is what set the grounds for gentrification.
I think that the government needs to play a larger role in protecting communities so that they aren’t displaced, attending to the needs of communities of color—not just when white people move in, regulating real estate brokers and business deals, circulating money back into public schools, the list goes on. Policy and community organizing both play large roles in making sure the capitalist system makes life better rather than overrunning humanity.
I think this is a very interesting question and can be interpreted in many ways. First off, I think it is important to improve our communities and help struggling areas in Los Angeles yet this is sometimes confused with gentrification. So I think once again we as a class need to discuss the definition of gentrification and I am personally interested in how it applies to this question. I think that the beginning to improvement is not to create “better” areas but instead help and support the struggling areas. I think that money would go to better use in a neighborhood that is already inhabited and considered a “community” instead of creating a whole new community and promoting its resources. Even in struggling communities there are some types of resources that already exist and can be improved. I don’t think Los Angeles will lose its reputation of economic diversity because I don’t think it is possible to create a completely balanced economic field in Los Angeles. I think no matter what there will always be economic inequality. I think one of the biggest struggles in Los Angeles is homelessness and I think that the people of Los Angeles could come together and put together shelters and food organizations to help the under-privelaged.
ReplyDelete