Essay On The Pros And Cons Of Gentrification

Gentrification can be defined as the cultural, economic, social, and physical occurrence in which middle to upper class citizens essentially moves into a declining neighborhood/area, at the cost of replacing and/or displacing the original residents. It has been a controversial topic for quite some time now, and the debate for it only continues to grow. On one side, there are those who say the process is a beneficial one, describing it as something that makes cities safer, nicer to live in, and economic value. This is understandable, since an area that goes through gentrification is “renewed” in a sense. However, this is a very superficial way of thinking. While gentrification may have its benefits, I believe this system of renovation is largely

a detriment to society. It is becoming more of a business by private companies and the government, causing cities and areas to lose their sense of identity and uniqueness, thus constructing this sort of “created experience” for modern day consumers. and overall decrease the quality of life for the original residents of a given area.

The whole idea of urban renovation is a business in itself. Much like how a realtor flips houses, this process is the flipping of entire areas: “It . . . encourages middle class people to buy housing units in declining neighborhoods” (Komakech and Jackson 415). Eventually this would attract more affluent people, increasing the value and attraction of the area, which would only increase once the process is set in option. Economics is a large part of gentrification, and it is the biggest reason for its success. The main attraction that urban renewal has on the state and companies is its potential to become a money making machine. As areas are being renovated, they conform to the wants of more affluent and creative classes. However, this gets in the way of the lives of native residents who are in gentrifying neighborhoods. A prime example of this would be Morris Komakech’s and Suzanne Jackson’s work A Study of Small Ethnic Retail Grocery Stores in Urban Renewal in a Social Housing Project, Toronto, Canada. Essentially this study was a number of interviews of residents of Toronto, specifically Regent Park, as well as

local shop owners. Within this article, Regent Park was going through a renewal process, which put “small ethnic retail grocery stores (SERGS)” (414) in conflict. Individuals were forced to leave their homes for many reasons, something known as displacement. Economically speaking, there are multiple reasons for this. Firstly, their original customers were moving out due to displacement from the renovation itself. One of the most popular reasons is increase in rent prices. Tenants are unable to keep up with higher fees, thus must move out to cheaper areas. Generally speaking, other personal maintenance fees also rise, causing even more people to move out. Private companies purchasing buildings and/or spaces would also force out its residents. Consequently, this implied trouble for local businesses—if their loyal customers were moving out, newer and wealthier residents were moving in. These people were not necessarily interested in ethnic goods. The shops’ own rent and maintenance fees increased. Furthermore, newer spaces were being opened for newer shops, brands, and companies. Ethnic stores were not permitted to move into these new spaces, which only hurt their chances of survival moreso. When asked about this issue, one owner said: “‘I was told I don’t qualify . . . they want big names, like Tim Hortons, Valu-Mart or any of those big chain franchises’” (418). Stores such as those were also cheaper than the ethnic grocery stores, thus losing any leftover customers to those big names. After all, why pay extra? This entire scenario is very similar to Zukin’s own words, as she writes in her book Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places: “Other new retail entrepreneurs come to a neighborhood for the economic opportunity, because they see that the population is beginning to change to . . . a higher social profile and more disposable income and they want to start a business that caters to their tastes” (19,20). Here, one clearly see how similar Zukin’s argument is identical to Komakech’s Jackson’s actual findings. In this one case alone, we see how not only are people being pushed out of their longtime homes, but local businesses are negatively impacted as well. Ultimately, this contributes as to why gentrification is a dangerous phenomenon to society, and adversely affecting native residents’ way of life.
Gentrification brings about a “created experience” wherever it goes.

Consequently, a city or area begins to lose its identity and uniqueness. This is due to one main factor. In his book The Rise of the Creative Class, Richard Florida states that the “driving force is the rise of human creativity as the key factor in our economy and society. Both at work and in other spheres of our lives, we value creativity more highly and cultivate it more intensely than we ever have before” (5) Essentially, creativity has become essential to aspect of life, whether it is work, leisure time, etc. It is something of paramount importance in today's society and caused the creative class to form, also known as the “bourgeois bohemians" (Zukin 7). This creative class is what governments and companies are attempting to cater to—at the cost of the livelihood of those who are not part of the creative class. So how does this decrease in the uniqueness of an area? A perfect example would be to go back to Komakech’s Jackson’s study of ethnic stores in Toronto. While there is clearly an economic loss for the community and its businesses, they lose their sense of community as

well.
Firstly, there is the idea of a society being ethnic in the first place. One area of a city can be known to be arab, while the other may be known to have predominantly Spanish residents. Thus, their local shops would cater to these different ethnicities. In their study, Komakech and Jackson state: “The significance of robust ethnic social space in a neighborhood is, therefore, critical in shaping neighborhood identities and sense of belonging (416). Essentially, people who identify as a certain ethnicity will stand support their area and local ethnic shops, mainly by giving them business. With the arrival of gentrification, these stores would go away and the shops/area would not be a culturally distinct place on the map any longer.
Secondly, within neighbourhoods/areas that have their original residents, there is an atmosphere of trust and community among each other. But once again, because of gentrification, we see that that trust begins to dissolve: “Every store owner/manager kept a large record of debtors and their patterns of payment. This is the social credit or informal credit system that is built on a foundation of strong ethnic and social relations” (Komakech and Jackson 417). Due to the relatively low incomes of the surrounding people, shop owners had a sort of IOU system. This was crucial, as it became a safe backup plan for many customers and built faith and strong relationships between members of the area. This is comparable to when Zukin mentions the similar idea of going to a local business versus a generic or chain one: “Some changes make you feel like a stranger in the neighborhood where you have lived for years, when the local drugstore where the pharmacist knows your medications is replaced by a Duane Reade or CVS and you never see the same cashier twice” (7). In this case one can see that a resident of an area who uses his/her local pharmacy would overtime build a relationship with the pharmacists. The pharmacist would get to know his patient better, learn his customers’ names and different medications. All of this comes to a halt when retail chains such as Walgreens or CVS come into the area because of gentrification. Newer stores did not allow a debt system in any degree. Furthermore, not only was money trusted, but the product was trusted as well: “Residents highlighted the importance of SERGS as a reliable source of halal products, thereby presenting a cultural place where religion an ethnicity intersected to provide convenient shopping” (420). Halal products is the Islamic equivalent of Kosher products for Jews—the meat is cut in a certain manner. For local Muslim residents, these ethnic stores provided them with the desired product, thus becoming a steady and trustworthy source. With the income of newer stores, meat was not Halal. Time was not supposedly wasted preparing meat and other products in the Islamic manner. With the shutdowns of ethnic stores and lack of care from newer ones, residents had to look elsewhere and/or move out of the area to meet their needs.