Gentrification: A Year In Review
Looking back on the year, I think our biggest debates and most interesting discussions as a class have revolved around gentrification. I have always been slightly confused about the topic of gentrification because I do not know where the line is drawn between the development of a community and gentrification. Is it possible for a community to develop/evolve without the label of gentrification being tagged to it? Is it possible for a community to change without risking the loss of its citizens? No matter what, communities will continue to change and shift as time goes on, and I am interested in all of your opinions about the effects of these changes and ways that possible negative impacts can be limited.
I think we have talked about this topic to a certain extent that we have concluded that there is not really a conclusion. We have discussed all kinds of outcomes of gentrification and, I agree, there is a fine line between development of a community and the "G-word". Talking about this topic has almost become an inherent part of our class and whenever a time comes when the idea is brought up, there seems to be no surprise, considering it is almost inevitable. Anyway, I think that this topic is hard to have definite opinions on because it seems as though every neighborhood develops eventually, and I wonder too if that development is also considered gentrification. Merriam-Webster says that gentrification is "the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents." This definition leads me to conclude that it is primarily a class issue. As we know, class issues are rarely exclusive to income. We have seen racial aspects of gentrification as well. I struggle to come up with a concrete opinion of mine regarding this issue after so much discussion in our class.
ReplyDeleteGentrification is a topic that has been present in our class since our first discussion. Since, when working on our first podcast, I'm sure each of our groups noticed signs of gentrification in our respective neighborhoods. As we develop our next podcast, gentrification will probably continue to be present. To answer your first question about gentrification being tagged to the development of a neighborhood, I'd like to say that it shouldn't be that way, but I know that it usually is. To use Highland Park as an example, when a city changes and different races start to move in (predominantly young white families), the dynamic of a neighborhood changes. When new obscure, trendy restaurants and shops open up, that is gentrification. And within Highland Park, there is no denying that it is occurring at an alarmingly fast rate. But, in connection with your second question about loss of citizens, I think it is possible to keep current residents intact. It would be hard, especially if prices go up whether through housing or consumerism, but I think it is possible. If the neighborhood works to keep the integrity and culture of the community intact, I think current residents would be more inclined to stay. Yet, this is hard to say because I can only imagine being in that position. Seeing my neighborhood that I have known to be one thing for so long, completely shift and become another. I don't think I could help but feel pushed out and unwelcome in a place that used to feel like home, leaving me to want to move out and find a new community. When thinking about development, I think this is a very fine line to draw. I see development as the reconstruction of old buildings or the cleaning up of streets. I see gentrification as new, really expensive businesses owned by millennials moving in and pushing out older mom and pop shops that have been there for decades. Maybe in this way, development is just improving a neighborhood through reconstruction while gentrification suggest things that are new.
ReplyDeleteGentrification is a topic that we have discussed tremendously over the course of the year and the reasoning behind this, I think has to do with the fact that communities are alway changing. Whether it be from developers, immigration or just through time running its course, the changing of communities has been prevalent in every part of Los Angeles, however some communities are hit much harder than others. I think that gentrification feeds off of low income communities because the rent for the house and the land there is much cheaper than in more developed areas. Therefore as more and more people migrate to LA, these areas are the first places they are looking. Second, because Los Angeles is such a sought after location to live in, for people moving, even if it is not in Downtown or Beverly Hills, people will still want to live to the next closes location. This is why the areas near the heart of La have all seen, pretty much, rapid development. Another important aspect about gentrification is the harm that it really does. The argument about gentrification only helping/improving a neighborhood I think is an unfair one because for low income individuals, I do not think that they reap the benefits of these changes because they are placed out and forced to move. However for us and whoever else is fortunate enough to witness and enjoy these changes, to us, "g-fication" is not seen as a bad thing. I do not think there is a definitive answer to whether or not it is a good or bad thing, however I do think it is important to consider both sides that are effected by these changes.
ReplyDeleteThe hard part about discussing the pros and the cons of the process of gentrification in Los Angeles is that there is fine line between the development of a community and gentrification. A problem that I have noticed involving discussions about gentrification in class is that most of the time I have noticed that gentrification has been seen as literally a black and white issue (thats kinda a pun too btw). What I typically see is that if people that aren't white are moving into the neighborhood, I noticed that most people don't have a problem with it, but when white people move in, that's when it's gentrification. Obviously this is just a small complaint about a huge topic that we have been discussing, but I think it's important to not that anyone can contribute to gentrification and be gentrified no matter what their race. In the end of the day I believe that gentrification is a problem that America will always have to deal with (the population is only getting larger, especially in California) and there is no real solution to it.
ReplyDeleteGentrification is a huge topic that we have barely even scratched the surface of this year. We have talked about it a lot in class and I think each podcast group found a way to incorporate gentrification into their first episode. I would differentiate gentrification and development by how quickly it happens. Gentrification is the rapid development of a neighborhood which quickly displaces the original tenants and occupants of the neighborhood while development occurs much slower. Being something that is really easy and important to talk about, I think that we have sort of used it as something to fall back on when we're struggling with understanding something, we just blame it on gentrification. This is just a hunch, I can't think of an exact situation, but I think that it has been something that is too easy for us to talk about and blame something on. When we have nothing else to talk about, we can always relate whatever we're discussing back to gentrification. However, because of this class, I have had discussions with my parents and neighbors about the pros/cons of gentrification. Through these conversations I have been able to realize that my neighborhood is gentrifying as well. As all my friends know, I know very little about my neighborhood, so I was very oblivious to this and I have been able to identify a lot of the signs now that it's been pointed out to me.
ReplyDeleteWhat I have taken away from our discussions is that gentrification can easily turn into an empty signifier for everything wrong that comes with the development of a community. I think communities do develop without it being labelled as gentrification, it's just that the impacts are not the same as those in communities where there is serious displacement. I do not think that the displacement of communities and death of a communities identity is good, but as you pointed out communities will always change. What really scares me is that in trying to fight the negative impacts of changing neighborhoods we rely on a nostalgic, unrealistic mindset that will not help anyone. Framing identity as some static, holy entity whose change we should all fear is the conservative ideology that I think no student in the class wants to replicate. It is the same sort of fantasy that allows conservatives to frame refugees as “foreigners” who threaten the national identity of a country. What will the people who have lived there for years before do? How will they integrate? How will the people that preceded them survive without giving up their identity? These are questions that are being asked by anti gentrification activists and the far right alike. That is not to say that if you are against gentrification you are on the same plane as nativists like trump, but there is no doubt that the rhetoric with which we approach these issues mirrors the right. If we are ever going to address these issues in a realistic way, then change needs to stop being equated with erasure, and our discussions around gentrification need to recognize the becoming nature of everyone's identity.
ReplyDeleteI think much of our discussion around change and how it pertains to gentrification revolves around what we define as good or bad community development. The way I understand it, if wealthy investors come into a stereotypically poorer neighborhood, buy out a family business that has existed for decades, and begin to sell a product or food that they know will attract other wealthy individuals and business, this neighborhood is undergoing gentrification. However, if an already wealthy neighborhood experiences change in that trendy, relatively new, hipster coffee shops are being replaced by other trendy, modern cafés, then this is not gentrification: it is simply the ebb and flow of business, and when one shop goes bankrupt because its customers are more drawn to another new store, it gets replaced. But since both shops/stores/places are relatively new to the community, this (in my mind) does not count as gentrification, even though the neighborhood is “changing.” And in this example of community “change," the neighborhood does not experience the loss of any citizens—rather of a few customers who will simply take their business elsewhere (likely to another one of the modern coffee shops nearby). On a completely different note, I think negative impacts can be limited within a community if the change is inspired or brought upon by members of the community. I do think that we have discussed this in the past, and if I recall correctly, we discussed how the cleanup of a community often engenders gentrification and angers the inhabitants, even though the cleanup is technically for their own benefit. If, instead, the cleanup were organized and executed by these inhabitants, they would feel like they are a part of the group enacting the positive change for their own community, and could so break the chain of gentrification by doing the work themselves, rather than leaving it to private investors with other intentions.
ReplyDeleteGentrification has consumed this class and I feel as though this is the most pressing issue that our city and cities around the world have to deal with. Neighborhoods are changing in seconds and although the commerce seems to be riveting trough neighborhoods the residents of these neighborhoods is changing just as quickly. I am very excited to come back to Los Angeles in five years and completely rediscover Los Angeles. I do think that the future will be interesting because the city is getting much more expensive and because this is the US I know that everyone values capitalism more than the next one. I believe that when I come back some of the newly developed apartments in Arts District, Silverlake, and Rampart Village will be shut down because no one will be able to afford it. The people moving to LA are looking for extremely CHEAP living so clearly this city is not providing those opportunities for them anymore as now the only cheap living means living at least an hour from the center of LOS ANGELES. This will lead to an anti-gentrification motivation.
ReplyDeleteThis is something I am also very interested. I think for the "improvement" of a neighborhood to truly occur it must come from within. Outside corporations coming into a neighborhood and deciding what this neighborhood needs almost never prioritized the needs of the current residents. "Improving" a neighborhood has almost become synonymous with the process of gentrification..but with this comes displacement. In this case..who is the neighborhood being "improved " for. If the residents of this neighborhood are not able to afford/enjoy these improvements then are they really improvements?
ReplyDeleteI facillitated on this day
ReplyDelete