The Multifaceted Impact of Gentrification
Dianne Velez
Molloy College
The Multifaceted Impact of Gentrification
In 16th century England, the gentry were upper class aristocrats who exerted great
control of the economy by virtue of their land holdings (Kreis, 2002. Retrieved from
http://www.historyguide.org/earlymod/lecture7c.html). In our generation, gentry are at
the root of a dilemma affecting many urban communities. A demographic shift is
occurring where the wealthy are spreading all throughout the city, and the
underprivileged are being displaced. The infiltration of the more affluent into low-income
and working-class neighborhoods was coined gentrification. Dictionary.Com
Unabridged defines gentrification as the buying and renovation of houses and stores in
deteriorated urban neighborhoods by upper or middle-income families or individuals,
thus improving property values, but often displacing low-income people and businesses.
When higher income people displace lower income residents, the essential character of
the neighborhood is transformed. While some will argue that gentrification is effectively
reviving run down neighborhoods and increasing property value, it is clear that low
income families and racial minorities are not greatly benefiting from this process. In fact,
gentrification has been devastating for the underprivileged, many of which have been
uprooted. The less advantaged, who are most often politically underrepresented and
conformists by nature, see themselves as powerless and do not stand up to protect their
rights and challenge the injustice. Understandably so, this ill treatment of the less
fortunate leads to great social conflict. Everyone knows that harsh inequities in society
make sustaining a diverse community an impossibility, and this has fueled revolutions
throughout world history. So why does the government do so little to protect the rights of
everyone in the community? Because money matters most!
With the New York Experience class, several neighborhoods where visited where
gentrification is actively taking place. The arrival of wealthy people to what were once
low income urban communities has altered these neighborhoods greatly. Long Island
City is a towering example of gentrification.
When we consider the negative impacts of gentrification, we can think not only
of residents who are immediately displaced by gentrification processes but also of
the impact of the restructuring of urban space on the ability of low-income
residents to move into neighborhoods that once provided ample supplies of
affordable living arrangements. (Newman & Wyly, 2006, p. 26)
Gentrification is a sign of economic growth, but the social cost of it is huge for the
underprivileged. Long time residents benefit initially from the trendy neighborhood
with safer streets, better schools, and Starbucks, but they are ultimately priced out of
renting or buying. The neighborhood that low-income families could once afford, will
eventually be off limits to those who might have moved there in the future. “Residents
may be displaced as a result of housing demolition, ownership conversion of rental units,
increased housing cost, landlord harassment, and evictions”(Newman&Wyly, 2006, p27).
Long Island City today is increasing in opulence. It is entirely different than the
neighborhood my aunt lived in in the 1980s. The waterfront area was largely
industrial then, but now it is a luxurious community with a magnificent view.
Another enormous example of gentrification is Brooklyn Heights. “Closely tied
through the labor market, to global financial markets, super-gentrifying neighborhoods
like Brooklyn Heights are peculiarly positioned global places” (Lees, 2003, p. 2491).
On day two, tour guide Todd explained that Brooklyn Heights started thriving after 1814
when Robert Fulton’s steam ferry brought prominent New Yorkers across the East River.
Brooklyn Heights became Manhattan’s first commuter suburb. When the subway opened
up the neighborhood to many commuters, many upper middle class residents moved out.
During the Depression, Brooklyn Heights was an undesirable place to live, but in the late
1950s a second wave of gentrification hit. As Lees notes in “Super-gentrification: The
Case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City,” gentrification can be traditional or “third-
wave super-gentrification” (p.2490), which involves builders and interior designers and
leads to “embourgeoisiement” (p.2490) of a neighborhood. Unlike the previous
generations of gentrifiers, it is apparent that the sky is the limit for these new era
gentrifiers. Brooklyn Heights is a beautiful place to visit, but it is highly exclusive.
In the 1980s, Harlem was a community for the underprivileged. Widespread use
of crack cocaine cultivated crime there. The multitude of abandoned properties were
havens for illicit activity. To put it nicely, Harlem was a highly undesirable place. A
patient that I cared for recently, a retired NYC Police Officer, worked this neighborhood
for many years. He stated that aggressive policing under former Mayor Giuliani led to the
significant drop in crime there in the 1990s. Bill Clinton’s office on W. 125th Street also
promoted development. Visiting this new Harlem was very interesting. Harlem is
becoming increasingly developed, and the population demographics is changing. While
the retail section of W. 125th Street has the feel of the old neighborhood, the brownstones
across from the park are characteristic of an affluent community. It is impossible to miss
the sharp contrast in such close proximity there. A community, so rich in culture and
history, is slowly being transformed. Because gentrification strikes without compassion, I
do not foresee everyone peacefully coexisting for long.
Although the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn was not part of the New York
Experience, it is an area that has been affected by gentrification. My mother has lived in
this community for a decade, and at her request I have included it in my paper. Curran
(2007) explained in her article that the displacement caused by gentrification is not
always residential; it is often industrial. Williamsburg has repeatedly seen conversion
of manufacturing space into residential lofts. The displacement of many small
manufacturers has adversely affected the largely immigrant and minority workforce of
Williamsburg. Losing one business affects employees, customers, and also other
businesses. “An economy cannot be strong without a strong manufacturing sector,
which is necessary to sustain economic diversity and to insulate the economy from
fluctuations in other sectors” (Curran, 2007, p.1429). Williamsburg used to be an
industrial hub with a large concentration of jobs and affordable housing. Local residents
state it has changed significantly. Its proximity to Manhattan and waterfront location
made Williamsburg a prime gentrification target. The invasion of the rich is fueling
conflict and resentment from community members who fear the inevitable.
When money flows into a community, some things change for the better.
Upgraded infrastructure, gourmet eateries, nice parks, increased police presence, and
better schools come with the increased capital. No one would disagree that these are
positive effects of gentrification. The issue lies in the fact that the affluent newcomers
benefit at the expense of the former residents and merchants. The diversity and spirit of
these neighborhoods are modified, and the less advantaged feel marginalized. This is
wrong in so many ways. If developers and gentrifiers would be more conscientious and
include lower income residents in their plans, society would benefit immensely.
References
Curran, W. (2007). From the frying pan to the oven: Gentrification and the experience of
industrial displacement in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Urban Studies, 44(8),
1427-1440.
1427-1440.
Lees, L. (2003). Super-gentrification: The case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City.
Urban Studies,40(12), 2487-2509.
Newman, K., & Wyly, E. K. (2006). The right to stay put, revisited: Gentrification and
resistance to displacement in New York City. Urban Studies, 43(1), 23-57.
