The Thing about Gentrification: Historical Harms & Modern Manifestations
By Sharanya Shwaminathan and Dhanviee Misra, 8/19/2021
Understanding Gentrification
Defined as a process that reinvigorates a historically disinvested neighborhood with resources, new people, and businesses, gentrification is a concept that has long incited controversy.
The term gentrification was first used in the context of “landed gentry,” a term used in the United Kingdom to describe landowners who would live off of the rental income they received. British sociologist Ruth Glass then popularized the term when she described the process of gentrification in working class districts like Islington, London. Furthermore, the roots of modern gentrification were originally driven by racially biased practices such as redlining. Redlining, a concept where marginalized communities - specifically, black neighborhoods - were labeled as unfit for investment by banks and the federal government, led to many abandoned neighborhoods and an inability to access loans to improve housing communities. Segregation and unrest in these neighborhoods ultimately made it much easier for new citizens and businesses to come in and overtake what were previously predominantly black communities.
White flight was another phenomenon contributing to the rise of gentrification. White flight was rampant in the 1950s, as large masses of the white population moved out from the cities into the suburbs, taking a fair amount of capital out of urban areas in the process. This process was supported by the Federal Housing Administration, and loans were not provided to black people who wanted to relocate to the suburban communities. Due to this departure from cities, lower-income neighborhoods and communities were forced to withstand the social and economic impacts of construction and urban renewal programs; this caused the displacement and demolition of many small businesses and residences. Much of gentrification was caused by racially charged practices, and thus many Black communities bear its burden on their shoulders. Professor Lung-Aman, who teaches urban studies and planning at the University of Maryland, remarks that “Gentrification is on the tip of almost every Black person’s tongue.”
A study by the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy cites various factors that contribute to gentrification. The most common causes for gentrification are usually rapid job growth, changes in housing markets with prices and affordability, the city’s appeal to certain cultures, and policies like tax incentives and economic development tools. These factors then incentivize middle-high income families to migrate to these previously abandoned communities, thus leading to the displacement of its original inhabitants.
Gentrification has long catalysed both political and social consequences due to its drawbacks and benefits. An article from the Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy analyzes the negative effects on gentrification on communities, such as “forced displacement, a fostering of discriminatory behavior by people in power, and a focus on spaces that exclude low-income individuals and people of color.” Through the influx of new citizens and business making an area more desirable, property prices tend to skyrocket, leaving many in poorer communities with no choice but to leave. With rezoning laws, those with more economic privilege are able to withstand the effects of gentrification and push others out of their communities. Further, most of the physical burdens of this kind of displacement are placed upon the elderly. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that there is a correlation between health and gentrification. Vulnerable populations who are forced out of their homes often have to relocate to areas that are subject to environmental racism and hazardous chemicals, which can invariably cause health issues. And economically, property taxes in these areas continue to rise, putting additional pressure on citizens.
Despite its negative consequences, there are benefits to gentrification. Primarily, it has been found to reduce crime rates and to offer an abundance of opportunities to residents. People employed in these areas tend to have higher incomes and attain higher education qualifications. It can also bring greater racial diversity and integration amongst different communities. With rising property taxes comes greater public school funding. Furthermore, the general renovation of such cities draws investors and supports overall economic growth. However, many of these benefits come at the expense of the lower-income residents and therefore, contribute to cultural and economic displacement. For this reason, it is difficult to definitively determine that gentrification is a positive phenomenon.
It is important to recognize that there is a difference between gentrification and neighborhood revitalization. Using a positive development model as described by the National Low Income Housing Coalition offers an opportunity to build a new community that is sustainable and beneficial to all inhabitants. For this to occur, governments must recognize the shared power and interest of their residents and include discussions of racial equity and preservation of culture along with economic growth. By fostering positive development, communities can be successfully revitalized, meaning inhabitants can experience its improvements whilst continuing to maintain their culture.
Gentrification Case Studies
Gentrification is a manifestation of inequality which has victimised many by displacing lower-income or working-class people from their neighbourhoods and depriving already marginalized groups of stability, housing and affordable amenities. Gentrification and its impacts have affected cities worldwide, with a few notable examples being Paris and Silicon Valley.
Paris is persistently becoming more globalized as an international hub for fashion, art, food and cultural exchange. The working class in Paris are struggling to cope with the current housing situation as the rents have reached an all-time high. Even during the pandemic, real estate prices have continued to increase, although slowly, as these prices are sustained by the upper richer class buyers. The prices have increased by 66%, breaking the symbolic threshold of €10,000 per square meter over the last decade. The average rate per square meter in Paris is becoming similar to that in alpha cities such as London and New York, and is roughly double than that in other French cities like Lyon and Bordeaux. Municipalities have the right to control rent prices under rent controls but this doesn’t affect the high rent prices set by the regional authorities. Historical places serve as central tourist attractions, but limit the construction of private housing in prime locations with escalating demands for housing. Various overpriced public amenities, such as restaurants, have also been introduced, which are unaffordable for the average resident, thus alienating them in their own neighbourhoods. The disparity between the local incomes and housing in Paris has increased, moving it into the “bubble territory” and it would take a skilled service worker 17 years of work to buy a 650 square-foot flat near the city centre according to the Swiss Bank UBS.
The inauguration of the Boulevard Périphérique or the Périph' in 1973 set the tone for the population divide in the years to come as it led to the expulsion of the working class. Now, it serves as a reminder of the socio-economic divide, physically separating the city centre and the suburbs, thus blocking the working-class Parisiens from the administrative centre. In turn, this has also created a psychological barrier between the upper and the middle class. The target demographic is changing in favour of administrative professionals, marginalising the different cultures of the local neighbourhoods brought in by immigrants from Sub-saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent during World War II. This status quo was politically accepted until 2016, when the superstructure of “Grand Paris,” which unifies 131 municipalities, began construction, which is expected to continue till 2030. The culture between the two sides of the Périph' is very different, therefore depriving lower-income households of their own culture when they have to move out. The Grand Paris governed by the right-wing isn’t concerned much about the integration of the city and the suburbs, resulting in gradual expungement of the working class. Around 11,000 residents left Paris between 2012 and 2017 and this pattern is expected until at least 2024. The pandemic brought the worst recession since World War II, making the city’s inhabitants even more susceptible to this exodus, as the general public was already struggling to afford the costs of living there. As such, it’s predicted that France’s capital will metamorphose into a “Ville Musée” or a “museum city” in the near future, showing reverence for its past.
Silicon Valley, a region of California just south of San Francisco, is experiencing growth at a much faster rate than many other states in the US, but the growth isn’t well regulated. With an average salary of $81,000, the average income in Silicon Valley is more than double than the average US income. This has considerably shifted the region’s social stratification, as even people with six-figure salaries find it difficult to sustain their livelihoods in Silicon Valley. Tech giants such as Amazon, Apple, and Facebook contribute to its unparalleled stock-market share prices, which have created an ever-widening wealth gap. The number of both sheltered and unsheltered homeless people has increased by 31% from 2017 to 2019. The area became the most expensive place to live in the USA in 2018, causing many tech employees to relocate and an ever-increasing homeless population. Furthermore, it has become very difficult for the housing market to keep up with the tech boom as the population has grown by more than half a million people over a decade, all in search of a livelihood.
There is an extreme disparity between the rent prices, available housing, wages and the population. This scenario has ingrained the stereotypical notion of a worker of Silicon Valley as both white and male. However, it is hardly a reach to call it a stereotype as it holds to be true even after many efforts for the inclusion of women and people of colour alike. The average percentage of women directors in the SV 150 was 25.7% in 2020 and in the S&P 100 was 28.7% (in the SV Top 15 was 30.3%). The 2014 reports by Fenwick & West LLP disclosed that women hold just 11% of executive positions at Silicon Valley tech companies. In fact, any graduating class of computer science majors at Stanford University is more diverse than the companies nearby. Bari Williams, an advocate for diversity in Silicon Valley, states that she has witnessed candidates being rejected solely because they attended a HBCU, meaning historically black colleges and universities, as it is seen as “lowering the bar.” While the greater Washington DC metropolitan area employs more than 17% African Americans high-tech workers – from programmers to security analysts to software and web developers, African Americans hold just 2.7% of the jobs in these same categories in Silicon Valley. At the top 75 companies in Silicon Valley, only 3% of employees are black, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The 2021 hiring at Google in the US, with headquarters in Mountain View in Silicon Valley, still lacks diversity sporting shocking statistics: 8.8% black, 8.8% Latino, 0.7% Native American, and 33.1% women.
Defined as a process that reinvigorates a historically disinvested neighborhood with resources, new people, and businesses, gentrification is a concept that has long incited controversy.
The term gentrification was first used in the context of “landed gentry,” a term used in the United Kingdom to describe landowners who would live off of the rental income they received. British sociologist Ruth Glass then popularized the term when she described the process of gentrification in working class districts like Islington, London. Furthermore, the roots of modern gentrification were originally driven by racially biased practices such as redlining. Redlining, a concept where marginalized communities - specifically, black neighborhoods - were labeled as unfit for investment by banks and the federal government, led to many abandoned neighborhoods and an inability to access loans to improve housing communities. Segregation and unrest in these neighborhoods ultimately made it much easier for new citizens and businesses to come in and overtake what were previously predominantly black communities.
White flight was another phenomenon contributing to the rise of gentrification. White flight was rampant in the 1950s, as large masses of the white population moved out from the cities into the suburbs, taking a fair amount of capital out of urban areas in the process. This process was supported by the Federal Housing Administration, and loans were not provided to black people who wanted to relocate to the suburban communities. Due to this departure from cities, lower-income neighborhoods and communities were forced to withstand the social and economic impacts of construction and urban renewal programs; this caused the displacement and demolition of many small businesses and residences. Much of gentrification was caused by racially charged practices, and thus many Black communities bear its burden on their shoulders. Professor Lung-Aman, who teaches urban studies and planning at the University of Maryland, remarks that “Gentrification is on the tip of almost every Black person’s tongue.”
A study by the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy cites various factors that contribute to gentrification. The most common causes for gentrification are usually rapid job growth, changes in housing markets with prices and affordability, the city’s appeal to certain cultures, and policies like tax incentives and economic development tools. These factors then incentivize middle-high income families to migrate to these previously abandoned communities, thus leading to the displacement of its original inhabitants.
Gentrification has long catalysed both political and social consequences due to its drawbacks and benefits. An article from the Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy analyzes the negative effects on gentrification on communities, such as “forced displacement, a fostering of discriminatory behavior by people in power, and a focus on spaces that exclude low-income individuals and people of color.” Through the influx of new citizens and business making an area more desirable, property prices tend to skyrocket, leaving many in poorer communities with no choice but to leave. With rezoning laws, those with more economic privilege are able to withstand the effects of gentrification and push others out of their communities. Further, most of the physical burdens of this kind of displacement are placed upon the elderly. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that there is a correlation between health and gentrification. Vulnerable populations who are forced out of their homes often have to relocate to areas that are subject to environmental racism and hazardous chemicals, which can invariably cause health issues. And economically, property taxes in these areas continue to rise, putting additional pressure on citizens.
Despite its negative consequences, there are benefits to gentrification. Primarily, it has been found to reduce crime rates and to offer an abundance of opportunities to residents. People employed in these areas tend to have higher incomes and attain higher education qualifications. It can also bring greater racial diversity and integration amongst different communities. With rising property taxes comes greater public school funding. Furthermore, the general renovation of such cities draws investors and supports overall economic growth. However, many of these benefits come at the expense of the lower-income residents and therefore, contribute to cultural and economic displacement. For this reason, it is difficult to definitively determine that gentrification is a positive phenomenon.
It is important to recognize that there is a difference between gentrification and neighborhood revitalization. Using a positive development model as described by the National Low Income Housing Coalition offers an opportunity to build a new community that is sustainable and beneficial to all inhabitants. For this to occur, governments must recognize the shared power and interest of their residents and include discussions of racial equity and preservation of culture along with economic growth. By fostering positive development, communities can be successfully revitalized, meaning inhabitants can experience its improvements whilst continuing to maintain their culture.
Gentrification Case Studies
Gentrification is a manifestation of inequality which has victimised many by displacing lower-income or working-class people from their neighbourhoods and depriving already marginalized groups of stability, housing and affordable amenities. Gentrification and its impacts have affected cities worldwide, with a few notable examples being Paris and Silicon Valley.
Paris is persistently becoming more globalized as an international hub for fashion, art, food and cultural exchange. The working class in Paris are struggling to cope with the current housing situation as the rents have reached an all-time high. Even during the pandemic, real estate prices have continued to increase, although slowly, as these prices are sustained by the upper richer class buyers. The prices have increased by 66%, breaking the symbolic threshold of €10,000 per square meter over the last decade. The average rate per square meter in Paris is becoming similar to that in alpha cities such as London and New York, and is roughly double than that in other French cities like Lyon and Bordeaux. Municipalities have the right to control rent prices under rent controls but this doesn’t affect the high rent prices set by the regional authorities. Historical places serve as central tourist attractions, but limit the construction of private housing in prime locations with escalating demands for housing. Various overpriced public amenities, such as restaurants, have also been introduced, which are unaffordable for the average resident, thus alienating them in their own neighbourhoods. The disparity between the local incomes and housing in Paris has increased, moving it into the “bubble territory” and it would take a skilled service worker 17 years of work to buy a 650 square-foot flat near the city centre according to the Swiss Bank UBS.
The inauguration of the Boulevard Périphérique or the Périph' in 1973 set the tone for the population divide in the years to come as it led to the expulsion of the working class. Now, it serves as a reminder of the socio-economic divide, physically separating the city centre and the suburbs, thus blocking the working-class Parisiens from the administrative centre. In turn, this has also created a psychological barrier between the upper and the middle class. The target demographic is changing in favour of administrative professionals, marginalising the different cultures of the local neighbourhoods brought in by immigrants from Sub-saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent during World War II. This status quo was politically accepted until 2016, when the superstructure of “Grand Paris,” which unifies 131 municipalities, began construction, which is expected to continue till 2030. The culture between the two sides of the Périph' is very different, therefore depriving lower-income households of their own culture when they have to move out. The Grand Paris governed by the right-wing isn’t concerned much about the integration of the city and the suburbs, resulting in gradual expungement of the working class. Around 11,000 residents left Paris between 2012 and 2017 and this pattern is expected until at least 2024. The pandemic brought the worst recession since World War II, making the city’s inhabitants even more susceptible to this exodus, as the general public was already struggling to afford the costs of living there. As such, it’s predicted that France’s capital will metamorphose into a “Ville Musée” or a “museum city” in the near future, showing reverence for its past.
Silicon Valley, a region of California just south of San Francisco, is experiencing growth at a much faster rate than many other states in the US, but the growth isn’t well regulated. With an average salary of $81,000, the average income in Silicon Valley is more than double than the average US income. This has considerably shifted the region’s social stratification, as even people with six-figure salaries find it difficult to sustain their livelihoods in Silicon Valley. Tech giants such as Amazon, Apple, and Facebook contribute to its unparalleled stock-market share prices, which have created an ever-widening wealth gap. The number of both sheltered and unsheltered homeless people has increased by 31% from 2017 to 2019. The area became the most expensive place to live in the USA in 2018, causing many tech employees to relocate and an ever-increasing homeless population. Furthermore, it has become very difficult for the housing market to keep up with the tech boom as the population has grown by more than half a million people over a decade, all in search of a livelihood.
There is an extreme disparity between the rent prices, available housing, wages and the population. This scenario has ingrained the stereotypical notion of a worker of Silicon Valley as both white and male. However, it is hardly a reach to call it a stereotype as it holds to be true even after many efforts for the inclusion of women and people of colour alike. The average percentage of women directors in the SV 150 was 25.7% in 2020 and in the S&P 100 was 28.7% (in the SV Top 15 was 30.3%). The 2014 reports by Fenwick & West LLP disclosed that women hold just 11% of executive positions at Silicon Valley tech companies. In fact, any graduating class of computer science majors at Stanford University is more diverse than the companies nearby. Bari Williams, an advocate for diversity in Silicon Valley, states that she has witnessed candidates being rejected solely because they attended a HBCU, meaning historically black colleges and universities, as it is seen as “lowering the bar.” While the greater Washington DC metropolitan area employs more than 17% African Americans high-tech workers – from programmers to security analysts to software and web developers, African Americans hold just 2.7% of the jobs in these same categories in Silicon Valley. At the top 75 companies in Silicon Valley, only 3% of employees are black, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The 2021 hiring at Google in the US, with headquarters in Mountain View in Silicon Valley, still lacks diversity sporting shocking statistics: 8.8% black, 8.8% Latino, 0.7% Native American, and 33.1% women.
