Gentrification defines the gradual process of renovating and changing an area, mostly urban, conforming it to the taste of the wealthier middle-class people. Ruth Glass, a renowned British sociologist, introduced this word in 1964, after studying how the social structure and the housing market in London were changing. Glass wrote, “One by one, many of the working class quarters have been invaded by the middle class ... Once this process of 'gentrification' starts in a district it goes on rapidly until all or most of the working-class occupiers are displaced, and the whole social character of the district is changed.” (Glass, 1964). Initially, the word was only used to define changes made to existing buildings and sale of residential building, but this has changed to include the newly built houses belonging to the middle class, as well as vacant spaces left after the process. As earlier stated, gentrification is gradual, and occurs in around four stages. A variety of authors have studied this process and provided their findings, with most focusing on its limitations. However, by studying the process, reviewing literature on this topic, and some of the reasons for opposing, this research paper concludes that gentrification is an equally positive process that benefits a community.
The Process
According to Clay (1979), gentrification occurs in around four stages, as discussed below. The first phase entails people or companies purchasing and making few changes to their properties, which they use personally. More often than less, this transition does not create much attention because it displaces little to no residents. Additionally, most of the properties are initially vacant, and the only little change they perform is their way of renovation. Secondly, a larger group- similar to the first one- moves in the same area, purchases houses, and starts the process of renovation. Real estate agencies also begin noticing these changes and move in to start the promotion of properties, and before the local communities realize this, this new wave of rental houses start to spread over wide areas. The middle-class then begin streaming in to occupy these already vacant homes, as it also begins to get attention from public agencies, the media, and anti-gentrification groups.
The third phase involves the continuous physical construction and development of new, mostly residential, properties. Additionally, the price of housing begins to rise gradually since most of them are owned by the middle-class and, consequently, displacement begins. This social class, in a bid to promote their neighborhood, shapes a contemporary inward community as a way of seeking to acquire public resources as requirements, such as more security. Finally, the fourth stage introduces a completely gentrified region, characterized by managerial and business middle-class group. Due to this reputation, the housing demand continue to rise in the neighborhood and, in turn, most commercial properties become residential. In addition to this, the demand for other services increase and thus, commercial, public resources, and selection retail, begin to crop up in various areas of the region, meant for the satisfaction of a new population. As a result of continuous increase in rent, displacement occurs at high rates and if housing demand continues to rise, gentrification may occur in other neighborhoods in the city, beginning from the first stage (Clay, 1977).
Review of Literature
With a variety of cities such as New York and London undergoing gentrification, it is no surprise that there is numerous research on the same. Most of these studies seek to understand the overall process, as well as its effects on the immediate society. The academic literature summary below argues that gentrification can be explained in three different ways. Firstly, Hamnett (2003) states that gentrification is as a result of the shift from industrial to residential structural organization in key cities. Hamnett argues that the apparent change in the focus on service rather than manufacturing industries has brought about an equally evident alteration in the occupation. This implies that the previous large population that mostly relied on manufacturing have shifted to join professional and service occupations, mostly found in the cities. Therefore, this group requires resources, including housing, that conforms to their taste, but still close to their areas of work, which largely causes gentrification.
Hamnett (2003) also introduces a second argument meant to explain gentrification, which also dwells on the industrial structure restructuring. She argues that the shift to a professional social structure has introduced other changes in areas such as preferences and the working patterns of white-collar working individuals who mostly belong in the middle class. A s a result, the above changes forces such groups to move into the cities, occupying gentrified areas, rather than living in the outskirts suburban areas. Hamnett also attributes the rise of small households and women professional empowerment as other minor causes of gentrification.
Finally, two authors state that gentrification leans more on the capital side than that of a movement of people. In their article, they argued that, “the driving force behind gentrification was the growing difference between the potential value of inner urban properties and their underlying land values.” (Atkinson, Bridge, 2005) This means that developers and real estate companies have recognized and taken advantage of these variations to come up with a rising gap in rent, leading to redevelopment of the undervalued properties, and in the process, yielded a lot of profits.
Shifting the focus from the definition of the word, other researchers have, in the past, offered a summary of this process, specifying on the case of Brooklyn. By 2015, Brooklyn ranked among the administrative New York City division with the highest population (US Census Bureau). The later 20th and 21st century has witnessed a dramatic shift in the total housing rent, which has continued to decrease affordability in Brooklyn and its neigborhoods.
Curran (2003) sought to study gentrification by examining how gentrification led to the displacement of manufacturing industry’s workers, mostly of the blue-collar group in the neighborhood of Williamsburg, Brooklyn. His primary argument is that gentrification fails to consider the importance of the small-scale blue-collar sector that provides manufacturing services, deeming it as insignificant, forgetting the role it plays in the urban economy. Therefore, gentrification threatens to totally displace the manufacturing service providers, to acquire space for residential properties. Curran argues that the process of gentrification has caused an industrial displacement, leading to an increase in white-collar professions that perceives the manufacturing sector as unimportant. Based on his increased focus on deindustrialization Curran shifts the attention of gentrification from a social to economic issue. His implications change the initial explanation of gentrification to a process that shifts an economic structure of a particular region. However, however, limits his discussion to the limitations of deindustrialization through gentrification, without considering other benefits.
Curran explains how the new resident of Williamsburg need public resources, commercial services, and parking spaces, all taking up the land meant for industrialization. In a report, the decrease rate in manufacturing and industry jobs in Williamsburg was higher than in New York (Roschen, 2015). The author, therefore, sought to measure the extent of this displacement, which he found that they included economy ‘informalization’, degraded manufacturing services, and displaced industrial workers and spaces Curran’s methodology seeks to measure the extent of industrial and manufacturing displacement. He, therefore, concluded by stating that one of the impacts of gentrification is the displacement of the manufacturing sector, which is still significant in the current economy (Curran, 2003).
Loretta Lee also wrote an article that introduced a whole new concept into the discussion of gentrification. According to her, there is a new shift in this process, which she termed as super-gentrification, describing the gentrification of an already gentrified place (Lee, 2003). The article is a summary of an interview she conducted with a young lawyer who took part in the gentrification of a four-story residential building, along with its occupants. Lee, therefore, uses her findings to discuss the impacts of gentrification, and the idea of super-gentrification.
According to the interview summary, the lawyer bought the building in 1962, and the occupants included the owners, as well as Irish families who fit in the working-class group. when he sought to renovate the place, the interviewee had to evict some of the occupants, while others chose to vacate voluntarily. Next, there was little renovation such as electrical and heating, which did not raise the rent too much, but was enough to be termed as gentrification as some middle-class families occupied the houses. After a while, another owner bought the property at a higher price than that of the lawyer, but this time made major renovations that may have cost more than the building. This second instance of purchase and renovation is what Lee used to explain the notion of super-gentrification, which she argues does not happen due to social and cultural shifts, but because of specificity and geographical location. The property cost more in the second purchase because Brooklyn Heights, where Lee based her case study is near Wall Street, one of the biggest financial center. (Roschen, 2015) The author, therefore, states that both gentrification and super-gentrification have almost similar impacts on a community.
Buntin (2015) in his article The Myth of Gentrification, explains some of the misconceptions and equal facts about the topic of gentrification. He states that most people perceive this process as one-way and similar, beginning from the construction of new property, improvement of public safety, rising of property as well as rent prices, which forces the residents who are, more often than less, of color and low-income earners to move out of such areas. Buntin, however, writes that this is a pure myth because gentrification does not occur in such a way. According to him, low-income families also move from areas that have not undergone gentrification, stating that there is more to the eye than gentrification causing displacement (Buntin, 2015). The author continues to argue that all the literature he consulted proves that there is no a cause-effect relationship between gentrification and poverty of the displaced groups. This article attempts to eliminate the stereotype surrounding gentrification and its negative impacts of displacement and poverty, by providing a whole new perception.
Vigdor (2002) also supports the above argument by Buntin, stating that the existing knowledge among many people regarding the benefits and shortcomings of gentrification. The discussion on the same stirs a hot debate, primarily because most people do not choose to research more and understand the real advantages and disadvantages, but only rely on information from the media and other sources. He states that most people oppose gentrification because they only dwell on the negative aspects only, without considering the fact that it offers a community with increased resources such as security. Vigdor gives a perfect example of politicians whose campaign agendas include putting an end to gentrification. This way, they instill the idea in people that it is a completely bad process that only seeks to benefit a few people.
Positive Outcomes of Gentrification in Brooklyn
From the above literature, gentrification has a variety of positive impacts on people in Brooklyn. First, original property owners sell their land and buildings to developers at very high prices, yielding them much profit than expected. In Lee’s interview, for instance, the second buyer under whom the property underwent super-gentrification bought the building at double the original price. This serves as a benefit to Brooklyn homeowners because even after sale and renovation, they have an option of staying as tenants. Secondly, purchasing and developing areas such as Brooklyn to conform to the lifestyles of the middle-class implies that the government will dedicate more resources such as security. This, in turn, will reduce the number of crime cases. The benefits increase in the cases of super-gentrification, and the members of the local community gain most from them.
Additionally, gentrified areas of a city comprise of diversified communities from different backgrounds, religion, race, among others. Diversity yields an increased and positive social mix owing to the fact that people living in a community are bound to interact in almost all levels (Ortega, 2010). Such a community is also set to learn a lot of different things from each other, as social cohesion increases. Another benefit of gentrification comes with the stabilization of such factors as security, economy, among others. In most cases, a government may opt to gentrify a region or neighborhood when there is a decline in the above factors. The result of this is always a society that performs well economically and in other aspects, which benefits the residents, and other people who move into these neighborhoods. For example, businesses in Brooklyn have witnessed a major shift in the overall consumer purchasing power, with more businesses opening up in the area. Customers now receive better services with old companies upgrading their goods and service delivery system to fit in to the lifestyle of residents (Lee, 2003).
Gentrification also creates variety of business and employment opportunities for the local community, and even people moving to these areas. Such include construction workers, real-estate agents, among other opportunities that satisfy the workforce. While some might be short-lived, it is still imperative to consider this as positive outcomes of the process. Additionally, both small and large businesses benefit by acquiring new locations to open up branches that offer services to the new community. Such new offices for corporations can provide employment opportunities to the community as well. It is also important to note that gentrification provides a community with readily available private and public resources and services.
Conclusion
Conclusively, gentrification forms a social trend that brings both positive and negative outcomes to a society it affects. Most sociologists and published literature tend to lean on the negative aspects, failing to give it its due attribution to some developments it offers. Numerous information gathered from the media as well as such published journals give the wrong impression or perception regarding to the overall public. The most widespread belief is that gentrification only seek to benefit the developers and the government while displacing the local communities. It is, therefore, important for people to fully comprehend that gentrification also has positive impacts that are both economic and social. The case of Brooklyn serves as a good example to show that the process does not entirely lead to negative impacts. Gentrification is a social issue, not only in Brooklyn, but in the entire world and it is important to carry out studies that correctly depicts both sides of this process.
References
Glass, R. (1964). Aspects of Change, in Centre for Urban Studies. London: MacGibbon and Kee.
Hamnett, C. (2003). Gentrification and the Middle-Class Remaking of Inner London: 1961-2001 Urban Studies 40 (12), p. 2401-26
Atkinson, R. Bridge, G. (2005) Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism. London: Routledge.
Roschen, W. T. (2015). Residential Displacement in Gentrifying Urban Neighborhoods: A Statistical Analysis of New York City’s Housing Characteristics. p. 7-10.
Clay, P.L. (1979) Neighborhood Renewal. Lexington: MA Lexington Books
United State Census Bureau. (2015). Quick Facts: Kings County (Brooklyn Borough), New York.
Curran, W. (2003). Gentrification and the Nature of Work: Exploring the Links in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Environment and Planning. p. 1243-1258.
Lee, L. (2003). Super-Gentrification: The Case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City. Urban Studies 40(12). p. 2487-2509.
Ortega, A. (2010). The Disputed Neighborhood: Gentrification of “East Williamsburg”
and Identity in the Shared Space. Hofstra Papers in Anthropology: Hofstra University.
Vigdor, J. (2002). Does Gentrification Harm the poor? Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs. Brookings Institution Press. p. 133-82
Buntin, J. (2015). The Myth of Gentrification: Its Extremely Rare and not as Bad for the Poor as You Think. The Slate Group. Retrieved on 2018, 3rd March from, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_gentrification_myth_it_s_rare_and_not_as_bad_for_the_poor_as_people.html
