Why we shouldn’t fear Gentrification

[WAZ]

The word “Gentrification” conjures up all sorts of negative images. Historic houses demolished for Mcmansions. Mom and pop stores replaced by Starbucks. Poor people forced out by rising rents. There’s also the misconception that if neighborhood ‘a’ is gentrified, all the poor people will move to neighborhood ‘b’ – in turn ruining it.

The last complaints have been proven wrong by urban planning professor Lance Freeman and economist Jacob Vigdor. Their research shows that few residents are actually forced from neighborhoods as a result of gentrification. People move away, but not in greater numbers than move from non-gentrifying neighborhoods.

In fact, their research suggested that gentrification can actually make it more likely that people will stay. That’s because gentrification has benefits. Businesses move in – and with them jobs. The tax base increases. Crime decreases. The schools improve. The same forces that attract the rich to a gentrified neighborhood, also encourage the poor to stay.

This should come as no surprise. Look at a neighborhood that has gentrified. You can’t point to another neighborhood and say “that’s where all the poor people went.” But people want to leave bad neighborhoods – and when they can, they do.

Cities are dynamic things. Gentrifying one neighborhood doesn’t mean ruining another. Quite the contrary. Gentrification benefits people in their own neighborhoods. We shouldn’t be afraid of it.

<br clear="all"> “Gentrification a boost for everyone” – USA Today, 2005

[names]

So Gentrification = Minority propaganda?

[kylejack]

People move in, yet people don't move out. Curious, that. So I suppose the rich white people are moving in to live with the poor people in the same house!

[barracuda]

Interesting study. Gentrification is inevitable for the urban core of growing cities like Houston, where commutes continue to worsen and the number of desirable points-of-interest within the loop grow. And it's true that many of the neighborhoods experiencing gentrification were solid middle class years ago, before the urban decline and white flight of the 60's-70's led to a poorer and minority demographic.

It is hard to believe that the opportunity brought by gentrification compensates for the increased cost of living for low-income folks. These are typically the very people who do not own their own homes but rent, and thus they do not benefit from increased resale value, but instead suffer with increased rent. The article suggests ideas like rent control, government subsidies, and doubling or tripling the number of tenants in an apartment.

I do think there is a valid point in that gentrification isn't all bad. Sometimes I think the complaints against gentrification are just the result of altered or diminished expectations. I'm not happy that gentrification prevented me from buying a small house in Montrose, and I want to blame someone. Might as well blame the rich straight yuppie couples working for oil companies for taking over the community. And hey, I could still get that drab 70's era dream townhouse if I value location above all else.

But ultimately, I just don't want the inner loop to become a Houston-version of Manhattan, where only the folks at the very top income brackets can actually afford a decent residence. I also don't want the other negative side effect of too much gentrification...where much of the charm and quirkiness that makes some of our spaces special in the first place are taken away in the quest for larger developments and more money, like mega-chain bookstores and condo towers.

People move in, yet people don't move out. Curious, that. So I suppose the rich white people are moving in to live with the poor people in the same house!

It's probably the result of denser development (townhouses and condo towers) displacing older homes and smaller buildings.

[august948]

The word “Gentrification” conjures up all sorts of negative images. Historic houses demolished for Mcmansions. Mom and pop stores replaced by Starbucks. Poor people forced out by rising rents. There’s also the misconception that if neighborhood ‘a’ is gentrified, all the poor people will move to neighborhood ‘b’ – in turn ruining it.

The last complaints have been proven wrong by urban planning professor Lance Freeman and economist Jacob Vigdor. Their research shows that few residents are actually forced from neighborhoods as a result of gentrification. People move away, but not in greater numbers than move from non-gentrifying neighborhoods.

In fact, their research suggested that gentrification can actually make it more likely that people will stay. That’s because gentrification has benefits. Businesses move in – and with them jobs. The tax base increases. Crime decreases. The schools improve. The same forces that attract the rich to a gentrified neighborhood, also encourage the poor to stay.

This should come as no surprise. Look at a neighborhood that has gentrified. You can’t point to another neighborhood and say “that’s where all the poor people went.” But people want to leave bad neighborhoods – and when they can, they do.

Cities are dynamic things. Gentrifying one neighborhood doesn’t mean ruining another. Quite the contrary. Gentrification benefits people in their own neighborhoods. We shouldn’t be afraid of it.

<br clear="all"> “Gentrification a boost for everyone” – USA Today, 2005

I find it hard to believe that the poor are not forced out of gentrifying neighborhoods. I've seen more than one neighborhood activist decrying the loss of a poorer neighborhood's demographic character as redevelopment and wealthier residents move in. And in economic terms, rents are only going to go up as the neighborhood gentrifies. The poorer members of a neighborhood are only going to be able to remain if rents remain fairly low and/or they own the property the live in before prices start to rise. If the studies show the opposite, I think you'd need to delve into them further to see what assumptions and constraints are implicit in the research.

Of course you can't point to one neighborhood and say 'that's where all the poor people went'. Unless there are only two neighborhoods in the city, residents are going to move to various other locations depending on all kinds of personal reasons. Gentrification benefits the neighborhood and homeowners, but not pre-existing renters, who are more likely to be poor and minority.

[kylejack]

I find it hard to believe that the poor are not forced out of gentrifying neighborhoods. I've seen more than one neighborhood activist decrying the loss of a poorer neighborhood's demographic character as redevelopment and wealthier residents move in. And in economic terms, rents are only going to go up as the neighborhood gentrifies. The poorer members of a neighborhood are only going to be able to remain if rents remain fairly low and/or they own the property the live in before prices start to rise. If the studies show the opposite, I think you'd need to delve into them further to see what assumptions and constraints are implicit in the research.

Of course you can't point to one neighborhood and say 'that's where all the poor people went'. Unless there are only two neighborhoods in the city, residents are going to move to various other locations depending on all kinds of personal reasons. Gentrification benefits the neighborhood and homeowners, but not pre-existing renters, who are more likely to be poor and minority.

This is my thoughts on the matter.

[Highway6]

From a racial standpoint -

Lots of gentrification is re-gentrification. White flight happened in every major city in the country as inner urban neighborhoods became desegregated in the 50s. For lots of areas, desegregation was only briefly achieved as the scale tipped all the way to the other side as opposed to finding a balance point. White Return flight is not a bad thing. Gentrification is not evil.

No ethnic group has the sole right to populate an area. It was true in the 50s, its true today.

The Heights was developed at the turn of the century for working class Houstonians. By the 70s it was run down and poor as a result of white flight. Today after gentrification it is 40% white and 50% Hispanic. Gentrification is the balancing of the scale that desegregation meant to achieve 50+ years ago.

Gentrification benefits the neighborhood and homeowners, but not pre-existing renters, who are more likely to be poor and minority.

From an economic standpoint -

Renters are not possible unless someone owns the rent property. Do minority property owners that own those rent houses in poor neighborhoods not have the right to try to make as much money off their properties as the market will allow ?

I'm poor. I'm a renter. Does the minority (asian) owner i send my rent checks to once a month not have the right to charge for as much as the market will allow him to ?

Do i not have the right to go find someplace better and cheaper nearby if my landlord raises the rent? Yup.

[WAZ]

I find it hard to believe that the poor are not forced out of gentrifying neighborhoods. I've seen more than one neighborhood activist decrying the loss of a poorer neighborhood's demographic character as redevelopment and wealthier residents move in. And in economic terms, rents are only going to go up as the neighborhood gentrifies. The poorer members of a neighborhood are only going to be able to remain if rents remain fairly low and/or they own the property the live in before prices start to rise. If the studies show the opposite, I think you'd need to delve into them further to see what assumptions and constraints are implicit in the research.

According to Lance Freedman and Jacob Vigdor, people already leave non-gentrified neighborhoods. People DO leave gentrified neighborhoods, (some maybe were priced out). But not more than would leave if the neighborhood weren't gentrified.

Of course you can't point to one neighborhood and say 'that's where all the poor people went'. Unless there are only two neighborhoods in the city, residents are going to move to various other locations depending on all kinds of personal reasons.

This is why I made the post. My observation is that Houston's poorest neighborhoods languish in part because people wrongly think "if you fix up THAT neighborhood, ALL THOSE people are going to come HERE." It's really frustrating to me, as an architect and a Houstonian.

Gentrification benefits the neighborhood and homeowners, but not pre-existing renters, who are more likely to be poor and minority.

The benefits of gentrification are for everyone. Renters and homeowners are able to walk the streets safely. Students benefit from better funded schools - whether their parents own or rent. City services improve for everyone. The list goes on.

Jobs also arrive with gentrification. Renters can increase their incomes by taking those jobs - and thereby afford higher rents. This was part of Freedman and Vigdor's research.

[LegacyTree]

I think the type of gentrification most oppose is "block busting," where developers attempt to sanitize entire urban areas with faux culture and lifestyle centers. They instantly commercialize a place and take away the long time residents comfort of being. Meaning that where there once was a time they could sit on their porch and observe a commonplace event like a sunset, now the vibe is that they're loitering for not being or pretending to be someone important or engaged in some form of consumerism. Believe it or not, vacant lots serve a purpose greater than adjacent land valuation. In a city sorely lacking in public space, these spaces are the parks for children. It boils down to your morality, is the dollar almighty or is there a greater purpose in your existence here?

The integral ad-hoc method of gentrification, manifested as building density is preferred. It is as urban pioneers are the purifying agents of brown fields and perceived blight, they (as the precursors to gentrification) act much like the biological function of wetlands.

[barracuda]

According to Lance Freedman and Jacob Vigdor, people already leave non-gentrified neighborhoods. People DO leave gentrified neighborhoods, (some maybe were priced out). But not more than would leave if the neighborhood weren't gentrified.

This is why I made the post. My observation is that Houston's poorest neighborhoods languish in part because people wrongly think "if you fix up THAT neighborhood, ALL THOSE people are going to come HERE." It's really frustrating to me, as an architect and a Houstonian.

The benefits of gentrification are for everyone. Renters and homeowners are able to walk the streets safely. Students benefit from better funded schools - whether their parents own or rent. City services improve for everyone. The list goes on.

Jobs also arrive with gentrification. Renters can increase their incomes by taking those jobs - and thereby afford higher rents. This was part of Freedman and Vigdor's research.

I agree with some of this, and I don't think gentrification deserves all the hate lodged at it. People should be allowed to make improvements to their homes and neighborhoods. But what does bother me are certain aspects of how gentrification is sometimes carried out -- primarily when it's done with a bulldozer.

One example is how so many older homes in Bellaire have been torn down and replaced with stucco-clad McMansions. This brute force approach has removed much of the history and charm of the area, despite the fact that most of the preexisting homes could have been remodeled and expanded while maintaining their original character. So I guess my biggest complaint is when new arrivals bulldoze properties and don't care one bit for the history or continuity of the neighborhood. They build their shiny new castle and erect a gate to close themselves off from the rest of the neighborhood.

On the other hand, gentrification that entails remodeling or renovating old or dilapidated properties seems justified to me...they have less negative impact on the environment, and the history and architecture of the original structure can be maintained and enhanced in the process. And since the homes aren't being replaced, the effect on nearby property taxes is not nearly as drastic vs. the situation where someone replaces a 1200 sq. ft. bungalow with a 3500 sq. ft. McMansion.

The whole socioeconomic affect of gentrification is harder to figure out. We live in a free-market economy, so price controls are not a great solution. I don't really know what the best answer is there...

[edit - fixed spelling mistake]

[barracuda]

I think the type of gentrification most oppose is "block busting," where developers attempt to sanitize entire urban areas with faux culture and lifestyle centers. They instantly commercialize a place and take away the long time residents comfort of being. Meaning that where there once was a time they could sit on their porch and observe a commonplace event like a sunset, now the vibe is that they're loitering for not being or pretending to be someone important or engaged in some form of consumerism. Believe it or not, vacant lots serve a purpose greater than adjacent land valuation. In a city sorely lacking in public space, these spaces are the parks for children. It boils down to your morality, is the dollar almighty or is there a greater purpose in your existence here?

The integral ad-hoc method of gentrification, manifested as building density is preferred. It is as urban pioneers are the purifying agents of brown fields and perceived blight, they (as the precursors to gentrification) act much like the biological function of wetlands.

I sometimes wonder if every last inch of vacant land inside the loop will be developed. Most people seem to view vacant lots as unsanitary and unattractive blight. What they don't see is the rich ecosystem filled with life in many of these "overgrown" vacant lots. Untamed nature is apparently quite frightening to most folks.

[Highway6]

One example is how so many older homes in Bellaire have been torn down and replaced with stucco-clad McMansions. This brute force approach has removed much of the history and charm of the area, despite the fact that most of the preexisting homes could have been remodeled and expanded while maintaining their original character. So I guess my biggest complaint is when new arrivals bulldoze properties and don't care one bit for the history or continuity of the neighborhood. They build their shiny new castle and erect a gate to close themselves off from the rest of the neighborhood.

On the other hand, gentrification that entails remodeling or renovating old or dilapidated properties seems justified to me...they have less negative impact on the environment, and the history and architecture of the original structure can be maintained and enhanced in the process. And since the homes aren't being replaced, the affect on nearby property taxes is not nearly as drastic vs. the situation where someone replaces a 1200 sq. ft. bungalow with a 3500 sq. ft. McMansion.

Bellaire isn't the best example. It's never been gentrified because there has never been a reason too. Has Bellaire ever fallen that far from the 90% White it is today? Has it ever been poor and rundown? And whats the typical architectural charm of Bellaire that's worth saving? It was founded not long after the Heights, but there has never been any Victorians, have there? ... and whatever bungalows used to be there are long gone. Let's save all those charming ranch homes ! McMansions are on their own tacky, I'll agree there.. but I see them as an independent problem and not necessarily a symptom of gentrification. Montrose has gentrified, but really, the level of McMansions is pretty minimal.

If I'm wrong on my perception of Bellaire's history, someone please correct me.

AIA home tour was this past weekend... half of those architecturally designed homes are in gentrified neighborhoods. Is that good gentrification or bad gentrification when a charming bungalow is torn down but not replaced by a McMansion?

[barracuda]

Bellaire isn't the best example. It's never been gentrified because there has never been a reason too. Has Bellaire ever fallen that far from the 90% White it is today? Has it ever been poor and rundown? And whats the typical architectural charm of Bellaire that's worth saving? It was founded not long after the Heights, but there has never been any Victorians, have there? ... and whatever bungalows used to be there are long gone. Let's save all those charming ranch homes ! McMansions are on their own tacky, I'll agree there.. but I see them as an independent problem and not necessarily a symptom of gentrification. Montrose has gentrified, but really, the level of McMansions is pretty minimal.

If I'm wrong on my perception of Bellaire's history, someone please correct me.

I disagree...Bellaire seems like a perfect example due to the huge disparity between old and new homes. Many of the newer homes in Bellaire are massive. The fact that the older Bellaire homes were small and lacked the grandeur of Victorian homes in the Heights further illustrates the gentrification that has taken place, whether you appreciate the charm of the older homes or not. Race has nothing to do with the phenomenon; socioeconomic status does.

[barracuda]

AIA home tour was this past weekend... half of those architecturally designed homes are in gentrified neighborhoods. Is that good gentrification or bad gentrification when a charming bungalow is torn down but not replaced by a McMansion?

I think it's a little sad anytime something remotely historic in this modern city is destroyed. It's nice for them to build homes with some architectural value, but you have to wonder why it was necessary to demolish a perfectly good house in the first place. But of course it's a very Texan thing to do, you know, to just build whatever you want because it's your property. And it's a process, because as the neighborhood begins to change, the historical context is lost and the remaining older, smaller homes eventually get demolished too. But if all the homes are replaced with more interesting homes that will still be sought after in 50 or 100 years, at least that's something.

[Highway6]

I disagree...Bellaire seems like a perfect example due to the huge disparity between old and new homes. Many of the newer homes in Bellaire are massive. The fact that the older Bellaire homes were small and lacked the grandeur of Victorian homes in the Heights further illustrates the gentrification that has taken place, whether you appreciate the charm of the older homes or not. Race has nothing to do with the phenomenon; socioeconomic status does.

I appreciate the charm of older homes. I appreciate the charm of a 30s bungalow more than the charm of a 50s ranch. There are suburbs far outside the loop but inside the beltway with homes as old as the average bellaire stock. Old doesn't equte to charm. I disagree on gentrification not having a racial slant but if you do agree that socioeconomic status of a neighborhood is what counts, then how does bellaire qualify? It has always been predominantly rich and upper middle class. McMansion invasion in bellaire isn't gentrification because the racial and socioeconomic levels of bellaire has remained fairly constant... it's rich whitey with bad taste buying from rich whitey with good taste.

[N Judah]

The downside of gentrification would be more obvious if we had zoning. A new crowd moves in and then suddenly they're calling the shots and pushing everyone else around. I don't think Houston has it as bad as other places, and I think we have less to fear from gentrification.

[crunchtastic]

I think the type of gentrification most oppose is "block busting," where developers attempt to sanitize entire urban areas with faux culture and lifestyle centers. They instantly commercialize a place and take away the long time residents comfort of being. Meaning that where there once was a time they could sit on their porch and observe a commonplace event like a sunset, now the vibe is that they're loitering for not being or pretending to be someone important or engaged in some form of consumerism. Believe it or not, vacant lots serve a purpose greater than adjacent land valuation. In a city sorely lacking in public space, these spaces are the parks for children. It boils down to your morality, is the dollar almighty or is there a greater purpose in your existence here?

The integral ad-hoc method of gentrification, manifested as building density is preferred. It is as urban pioneers are the purifying agents of brown fields and perceived blight, they (as the precursors to gentrification) act much like the biological function of wetlands.

While it's not an example of block-busting per se, the 4th ward/Midtown immediately comes to mind.

[kylejack]

While it's not an example of block-busting per se, the 4th ward immediately comes to mind.

Does This Is It! Soul Food Cafe own their building, or are they renting? If they're renting I fear that they will be squashed by Post to put in a coffeeshop, douchebag bar, or fusion restaurant.

[Highway6]

Does This Is It! Soul Food Cafe own their building, or are they renting? If they're renting I fear that they will be squashed by Post to put in a coffeeshop, douchebag bar, or fusion restaurant.

HCAD lists "HOUSTON THIS IS IT CAFE" as the owner. However, even if they do own their own building, someone else could come along and offer them a ridiculous amount of money for that land. It's their right to walk away, cash out, or relocate. They don't owe the neighborhood protection from a douchebag bar moving in if they choose to sell out because the money is right.

They're not even in their original location.

[kylejack]

HCAD lists "HOUSTON THIS IS IT CAFE" as the owner. However, even if they do own their own building, someone else could come along and offer them a ridiculous amount of money for that land. It's their right to walk away, cash out, or relocate. They don't owe the neighborhood protection from a douchebag bar moving in if they choose to sell out because the money is right.

Since they own the land it is moot, yes I agree. But if they were paying a landlord and the landlord chose to sell the land, certainly its his right but its a legitimate complaint about gentrification.

[Highway6]

But if they were paying a landlord and the landlord chose to sell the land, certainly its his right but its a legitimate complaint about gentrification.

I concur.

Ultimately, gentrification can only happen if the property owners of an area let it... and that doesnt just apply to the present but to the point in time where land owners sold to those that would turn their property into rent property.

Hasn't 4th ward traditionally always been an african-american neighborhood? Weren't the bulk of the land owners here african-american.. just like the Jone's that own This Is It? Who owned the properties of Freedman's town .... were they all rentals?

I don't know the answer.. obviously my point is not made and I'm 100% wrong if from the very beginning 4th ward consisted of white property owners primarily renting to african americans.....but I don't think that was the case.

4th ward has always been poor. At some point, the african-american residents that owned property in the neighborhood had to have said 'the hell with it' and either turned their properties into rentals, or sold to those that did. Those then in turn sold to developers that started the tin townhome madness.

Blame originates with the original landowners that didn't think the neighborhood was worth it. Those that did think the neighborhood was worth it were sucked in for the downward spiral (as far as neighborhood character is concerned) and upward spiral ( as far as property values and safety as poor rent homes were demolished is concerned).

[Dan the Man]

Bellaire isn't the best example. It's never been gentrified because there has never been a reason too. Has Bellaire ever fallen that far from the 90% White it is today? Has it ever been poor and rundown? And whats the typical architectural charm of Bellaire that's worth saving? It was founded not long after the Heights, but there has never been any Victorians, have there? ... and whatever bungalows used to be there are long gone. Let's save all those charming ranch homes ! McMansions are on their own tacky, I'll agree there.. but I see them as an independent problem and not necessarily a symptom of gentrification. Montrose has gentrified, but really, the level of McMansions is pretty minimal.

If I'm wrong on my perception of Bellaire's history, someone please correct me.

Bellaire has always been a white neighborhood, but there has been a definite demographic shift in terms of the income of the residents. Up until the 1980s, a substantial portion of Bellaire (and West U) residents were lower middle class people who worked in blue collar jobs. This is evident through the original housing stock in the area. Aside from a few victorians and bungalows, most original Bellaire houses were really cheaply-constructed ranch houses from the late 1940s. They didn't age very well, and the neighborhood became pretty run-down by the 1980s. Fortunately, neighborhood's location and larger lots began to attract people who couldn't afford West U. The rest is history.