What Are The Pros And Cons Of Gentrification

To simply say gentrification is good or bad would ignore the intricacies of this complicated issue. This essay will explore both the positive and negative consequences of gentrification, as well as how policymakers can balance the pros and cons of the process through public policy and further research. Lees et al. (2008, p. xv) define gentrification as “the transformation of a working-class or vacant area of the central city into middle-class residential and/or commercial use.” This essay will focus on gentrified areas that transform from working-class to middle-to-upper class, since these transformations are more commonly accepted as gentrification and have more impact overall. It is debated whether transformation of vacant areas is gentrification

or not.
While gentrification is characterized by an improvement in neighborhoods leading to the displacement of the original residents, revitalization is characterized by improvement in neighborhoods that benefits the original residents. Zielenbach (2000, p.31) defines revitalization as “the improvement of economic conditions for existing residents and the re-integration of the neighborhood into the market system.” This distinction between gentrification and revitalization is important when discussing the positive and negative consequences of gentrification. It recognizes the core flaw of gentrification: displacement. Before going into more detail of the negatives, however, it is important to understand the positive effects of the process.
In general, gentrification has a positive impact on the economic development of a neighborhood by bringing in new businesses, lowering unemployment rates, and so on. Gentrification also leads to increased property values in the community, which leads to more tax revenue and more profit in the real estate sector. In turn, this can attract more real estate developers and businesses to move into the community. Higher property values also mean people of higher incomes will move in, raising the median income of the neighborhood. Arguably, this can also lead to increased safety in the neighborhood, as well as better schools and infrastructure. Existing homeowners also benefit from this, since their home values will increase and they can make a profit by selling if they want to move. All of this will encourage the private and public sectors to invest in the area more, since it is developing and improving. Some argue this can have a “greater good” effect on the larger area surrounding the community (the city).
In addition to economic benefits, Lees et al. (2008) found arguments that gentrification increases “social mix” (p. 234) in a community and gives some marginalized groups a place to escape from the repressive suburbs. “Social mix” refers to a more diverse neighborhood, where people of all races and classes live, and can lead to greater stability and balance in a community. Further, they explain that women and people who identify as gay or lesbian can find greater acceptance in what they call “emancipatory space[s]” (p. 234) of the inner city in gentrified areas. Thus, gentrification can act as a means to emancipation for some marginalized groups.
All that being said, gentrification has some very serious negative consequences.

Although gentrification can lead to social mixing of different classes and races, this can actually worsen quality of life for the original residents of a neighborhood and lead to “displacement, segregation, and social polarization” (Lees, 2008, p. 2449). Displacement is the worst consequence of gentrification. There is data that shows a significant number of people are displaced due to gentrification. In New York City, between 1989 and 2002, about 10,000 were displaced each year, which represents between six and ten percent of local moves during those years (Newman & Wyly, 2006). This displacement occurs because of the increased property values the new residents bring with them. The original residents often cannot afford to live in their community and are priced out of their living arrangements. Even with some affordable housing set aside, there is not enough to keep all the original residents and it does not guarantee people will still be able to afford living there, considering other costs of living will also increase, such as food and other goods and services. To make matters worse, displaced residents can have great difficulty trying to find affordable housing elsewhere, which limits the resources they could be using on improving their livelihoods, such as by getting an education or investing in their community (Fullilove, 2001). This is bad not only on a moral level, but also

economically. Displacement of primarily low-income and minority residents leads to increased homelessness and overcrowding in receiving neighborhoods, which puts a strain on the city’s economy. It can also have negative effects on health by forcing more people to live in substandard housing, which makes people more susceptible to illness (Fullilove, 2001).
In addition to physical displacement, gentrification also causes political and cultural displacement (Hyra, 2015). As middle-class and white residents begin to move into historically low-income and minority neighborhoods, they tend to take political power away from the original residents of the community. Hyra (2015) uses Shaw/U Street as an example of this, a Washington, D.C. community where blacks held most of the political power until white, middle-class people started moving in and taking over. Similarly, these white, middle-class residents also caused cultural displacement in Shaw/U Street. Cultural displacement occurs when the culture of the community changes to meet the needs of the new residents, thereby displacing the cultural needs of the original residents. For example, a historically black church was forced out of the community after new residents complained about their parking lot. After the church moved, the middle-class, white residents began using the old parking area as a dog park (Hyra, 2015). This relates to Bolton’s (1992) idea of “sense of place” in a community, which he defines as “an intangible location-specific asset” (p. 193). When an area has a sense of place, it is more likely to have more security and trust between community residents. This is very difficult to measure, but gentrification arguably eliminates any sense of place in a community by completely displacing the original residents, as well as their politics and culture, and making it unrecognizable to the place it previously was.
Overall, the positive effects of gentrification do not overcome the many negative consequences.

The core flaw with gentrification is that although it brings economic development to a neighborhood, this does not benefit the original residents of the affected communities—in fact, it hurts them. The positive impacts of gentrification disproportionately benefit people who do not really need economic help in the first place (middle-to-upper class people). The goal of neighborhood development should be to improve the lives of the people already living in a community—not to improve the neighborhood so other people can move in and kick the original people out. The latter does nothing to change the systemic struggles that poor and minority people face in urban areas, including lack of affordable housing. This is the difference between gentrification and revitalization. Revitalization is characterized by many of the same positive effects of gentrification, while benefitting the original residents, instead of displacing

them.
Thus, future public policies should have the goal of revitalization, as opposed to gentrification. Policies should work to help existing residents improve their quality of live by helping them improving their median income, employment rates, safety, schools, and infrastructure. Any real estate developers moving into the area should be required to prove they will not displace existing residents before they are allowed to develop. Similarly, new businesses should be required to offer a certain proportion of living-wage jobs to existing residents and must not be too expensive or culturally different for them. The government can increase the availability of public housing, while also maintaining its safety and livability. The government, as well as non-profits, can invest in these disadvantaged neighborhoods by creating public land trusts, giving out small business loans, and community organizing. Most of this is difficult to achieve, but one way to make it easier would be to improve the measurement of displacement.
Currently, it is very difficult to truly measure the amount of people displaced by gentrification. It is hard to define who the original residents are, where they move (if they do), and what their motives for moving were. New York City conducts a Housing and Vacancy Survey every three years. The survey covers a sample of about 18,000 housing units and asks people who are moving into those units why they moved. Newman and Wyly (2006) were able to use this survey to estimate displacement due to gentrification in New York City. They estimated that about 10,000 people were displaced each year between 1989 and 2002, which is a significant amount of people. Not all cities have this type of survey, so we should first implement it in all major cities. Additionally, we should improve the surveys to better estimate the true amount of displacement. The New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey is a valuable tool for measurement, but it may underestimate displacement by ignoring people who become homeless, move in with friends/family, or move out of the city (Newman & Wyly, 2006). It may also overestimate by including people who moved for cheaper housing voluntarily and not due to gentrification. Thus, we should improve the types of measurements used to get a more accurate picture. For instance, there should also be surveys for people moving out of a city that asks more specifically their motives for moving and where they are moving to. This will help better measure the effects of gentrification, which will in turn make it easier to implement polcies that better prevent displacement.